Drug Contracting: Bridging the Gap Between Value and Cost
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.
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
In an era of innovative therapies and escalating healthcare costs, drug contracting has become a cornerstone of sustainable healthcare delivery. Balancing the promise of cutting-edge treatments with financial realities poses a significant challenge for payers and pharmaceutical companies alike. In this blog, we’ll delve into how drug contracting is evolving to bridge the gap between value and cost and how Lyfegen’s solutions empower stakeholders to achieve this balance efficiently.
The healthcare industry faces a dual mandate: ensure patient access to life-saving treatments and maintain financial sustainability. This balance is particularly critical in the face of rising costs for innovative therapies such as gene and cell treatments, which can range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars per patient. For example, the average cost of some gene therapies exceeds $1 million per treatment, creating substantial financial pressure on healthcare systems and insurers.
At the heart of this challenge is the need for value-based frameworks that link reimbursement to patient outcomes. Traditional models—which rely on fixed pricing or volume-based discounts—are no longer adequate to address the uncertainties associated with high-cost therapies. These uncertainties include the long-term effectiveness of treatments, variability in patient response, and potential complications that may arise over time.
Moreover, there is increasing pressure from governments and regulatory bodies to ensure affordability without compromising access. For instance, in Europe, innovative reimbursement models are gaining traction, with over 50% of countries exploring outcome-based agreements as a way to manage budgetary constraints. Similarly, in Asia, the growing adoption of health technology assessments (HTAs) underscores the focus on aligning drug pricing with real-world effectiveness.
For payers, these dynamics mean embracing tools that provide clarity on financial risks while ensuring that patients receive timely access to treatments. Pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, face the challenge of justifying the high costs of their therapies through transparent data and measurable outcomes. Success in this evolving landscape requires collaboration between stakeholders, data-driven decision-making, and the adoption of technology platforms that streamline the contracting process.
Traditional pricing models often struggle to account for the long-term impacts of high-cost therapies. To address these challenges, stakeholders are increasingly adopting value-based contracting models that tie payment to outcomes. However, implementing these models requires sophisticated data analysis, scenario planning, and a commitment to shared goals.
Lyfegen’s suite of tools is designed to simplify and optimize the drug contracting process, enabling payers and pharmaceutical companies to achieve their objectives efficiently. Here’s how:
1. Lyfegen Agreements Library: This comprehensive digital repository offers access to over 6,000 public agreements and 20 unique pricing models.
2. Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator: This tool empowers users to simulate pricing scenarios and evaluate their financial implications in real-time.
3. Lyfegen Rebate Analytics Platform (ARA): Optimize rebate management with seamless automation and centralized processes.
Adopting innovative drug contracting strategies can make the difference between missed opportunities and successful outcomes. Lyfegen’s solutions, are here to help you design contracts that balance value and cost effectively. Book your demo today to see how these tools can support your goals.
READ MORE
The first quarter of the year is a pivotal time for the pharmaceutical industry. As budgets are finalized and contracts renegotiated, Q1 sets the stage for how effectively organizations manage rebates, optimize costs, and deliver value.
For those navigating the complexities of pharma rebate management, Q1 offers unique opportunities to streamline workflows, review existing agreements, and ensure every rebate maximizes its potential. This period isn’t just about planning, it’s about implementing smarter processes to stay ahead in an increasingly dynamic healthcare landscape.
Why Rebate Management Deserves Q1 Attention
Q1 is the ideal time to evaluate rebate performance from the previous year. Were the agreements aligned with expectations? Did they deliver the promised value?
By assessing past performance, teams can identify underperforming agreements and opportunities for improvement. This ensures resources are allocated to agreements that drive measurable results.
Rebate workflows are often complex, requiring significant manual effort for tracking, reconciliation, and reporting. In Q1, organizations have the opportunity to implement systems that:
Streamlining workflows early in the year creates efficiencies that save time and resources throughout the year.
The first quarter is also critical for renegotiating rebate terms with manufacturers and payers. Updated contracts may include:
Teams equipped with data from previous agreements are better positioned to negotiate terms that align with strategic goals.
The Role of Technology in Pharma Rebate Management
Technology is transforming how organizations approach pharma rebate management. Tools like those offered by Lyfegen enable teams to:
For example, Lyfegen’s platform simplifies rebate tracking and provides actionable insights, ensuring organizations maximize their rebate potential while minimizing inefficiencies.
Start your year smarter!
Q1 is the time to rethink and refine your approach to pharma rebate management. With smarter workflows, clearer insights, and a focus on data-driven strategies, your team can unlock measurable savings and operational excellence.
Book a demo today to discover how Lyfegen’s solutions can simplify your rebate workflows and set you up for success in 2025.
Sign up & be the first to know about INNOVATIONS
* By sending this message, you agree to our privacy policy.
