Lyfegen Secures additional CHF 5 Million in Series A Funding to Scale Its Drug Rebate Management Platform Globally
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)
.jpg)
READ MORE
Basel, Switzerland / Boston, USA – December 11, 2024
Lyfegen, a global leader in drug rebate management technology, today announced the successful close of its additional CHF 5 million Series A funding round. The round was led by TX Ventures, a leading European fintech investor, with additional participation from aMoon, a global health-tech venture capital firm, and other institutional investors. This funding represents a significant milestone for Lyfegen, enabling the company to accelerate its global expansion and innovation efforts, with a focus on extending its reach beyond Europe into new markets worldwide.
Addressing Rising Drug Costs with Intelligent Drug Pricing and Rebate Solutions
The healthcare industry faces increasing challenges with rising drug costs and the complexity of managing growing volumes of rebate agreements. For payers and pharmaceutical companies, manual processes often lead to inefficiencies, compliance risks, and operational delays. Lyfegen is transforming this process with its fully automated platform that ensures secure, real-time tracking, compliance, and operational efficiency at scale.
Today, 50+ leading healthcare organizations across 8 geographical markets rely on Lyfegen’s solutions to streamline 4'000+ rebate agreements while tracking over $1 billion in pharmaceutical revenue and managing over $0.5 billion in rebates annually. These solutions enable healthcare organizations to improve pricing strategies, accelerate access to modern treatments, and better manage rebate complexities.
Scaling Globally with a Leading Rebate Management Platform
Already used by healthcare payers and pharmaceutical companies in Europe, North America, and the Middle East, Lyfegen’s platform is poised for broader global deployment. By automating rebate management, the platform enables healthcare organizations to simplify complex agreements, save time, reduce errors, and enhance financial performance.
“The market for innovative and personalized treatments is expanding rapidly, but with that comes increasingly complex and costly pricing models,” says Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen. “Lyfegen’s automated solution simplifies this complexity, helping payers and pharmaceutical companies unlock the full potential of rebates while improving patient access to modern treatments. With this funding and our new partners, we’re ideally positioned to accelerate our growth and make a meaningful impact globally.”
Jens Schleuniger, Partner at TX Ventures, adds: “Lyfegen is at the forefront of innovation, offering payers and pharmaceutical companies a powerful solution to address the rising complexities of pharma rebates. We’re proud to lead this funding round and support Lyfegen’s mission to bring greater efficiency and cost savings to healthcare systems worldwide.”
About Lyfegen
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 the 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.
About TX Ventures
TX Ventures is one of Europe’s emerging leaders in early-stage fintech investing. The venture capital fund invests predominantly in B2B Fintech across Europe - preferably in seed to series A stage.
For more information about Lyfegen’s solutions or to schedule an interview, please contact:
marketing@lyfegen.com
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.
Sign up & be the first to know about INNOVATIONS
* By sending this message, you agree to our privacy policy.
