Gene Therapies: Negotiating the Priceless-Insights from the Lyfegen 2024 Drug Contracting Trends Report
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
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.
