How Technology is Transforming Drug Rebate Management
READ MORE
Insights & Articles
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
Source: Institute for Clinical and Economic Review
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.
Want to understand ICER's impact on drug pricing?
Explore the full article on how it shapes value-based healthcare.
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.
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
READ MORE
The complexity of drug rebate management has grown significantly in recent years. With multiple rebate structures, evolving regulations, and limited visibility across the process, pharmaceutical companies and payers face increasing challenges in tracking, optimizing, and ensuring compliance in rebate agreements.
Traditional rebate management often relies on manual processes, spreadsheets, and siloed data sources—leading to inefficiencies, errors, and revenue leakage. But technology is changing that. Automation, real-time analytics, and centralized platforms are transforming how pharma and payers approach rebate strategies.
Automation and AI
Advanced Analytics and Predictive Modeling
Improved Compliance & Transparency
The future of rebate management isn’t manual—it’s intelligent, automated, and built for scale. That’s exactly where Lyfegen comes in.
Our Rebate Analytics Platform is designed to help both payers and pharmaceutical companies take control of growing complexity. With automation, analytics, and real-time insights at its core, Lyfegen enables your team to:
Payers and pharma leaders around the world are already using Lyfegen to recover lost revenue and gain full visibility into their rebate performance.
Now it’s your turn. 👉 Book a demo and see how Lyfegen transforms rebate management—starting today.
READ MORE
With price tags in the millions, gene therapies are redefining medicine—and reshaping how we negotiate access to it. For both payers and pharmaceutical companies, these breakthrough treatments present a shared challenge: how do you fund what feels priceless?
From Zolgensma to Hemgenix, gene therapies promise one-time cures for rare and life-threatening diseases. But the financial model behind them can’t follow the traditional playbook. These treatments call for a smarter, more collaborative approach to pricing—and that’s exactly what’s taking root.
Why Payers and Pharma Need a New Playbook
Unlike conventional drugs, gene therapies frontload their cost while delivering benefits over time. That disconnect forces a fundamental rethink of how pricing, reimbursement, and risk-sharing are handled.
According to the Lyfegen 2024 Drug Contracting Trends Report, health systems worldwide are moving toward innovative agreements: outcome guarantees, installment plans, and subscription-based models. These aren’t just experiments—they’re becoming essential tools to balance patient access with financial responsibility.
For payers, it’s about managing risk while maintaining equity. For pharma, it’s about demonstrating value in a way that aligns with clinical reality. Either way, the direction is clear: shared risk, shared benefit.
Global Shifts That Are Shaping the Market
The trends are global and accelerating. In the United States, payers like Blue Cross Blue Shield and Medicaid are embracing outcome-based models for sickle cell gene therapies like Casgevy and Lyfgenia. Brazil’s Ministry of Health uses installment payments for Zolgensma, spreading risk over five years while tying reimbursement to real-world outcomes.
In Europe, countries like Spain and Italy combine restricted coverage with annual reassessments, ensuring that high-cost therapies are only reimbursed if they continue to deliver results.
The message? Pricing innovation is no longer a nice-to-have—it’s the only way forward.
How Lyfegen Bridges the Gap
At Lyfegen, we help payers and pharma move beyond the negotiation table—and into action.
• Our Agreements Library, the world’s largest digital repository of value-based contracts, helps you understand what others are doing and where the benchmarks lie.
• Our pricing simulation engine lets both sides explore scenarios before committing—making deals smarter from day one.
• And our automated platform handles everything from contract setup to rebate tracking, saving time, reducing risk, and driving transparency.
A Smarter Way to Fund the Future of Medicine
Gene therapies will continue to challenge the limits of what we think healthcare can afford. But with the right models and tools, both payers and pharma can find common ground—ensuring that innovation reaches the patients who need it most.
Curious about what’s next in drug contracting?
Download the 2024 Drug Contracting Trends Report for exclusive insights, real-world examples, and global benchmarks.
Sign up & be the first to know about INNOVATIONS
* By sending this message, you agree to our privacy policy.
