Lyfegen Secures additional CHF 5 Million in Series A Funding to Scale Its Drug Rebate Management Platform Globally
READ MORE
Insights & Articles
Medicaid’s launched its multiple best price program in July 2022 to address a major regulatory barrier to value-based drug pricing arrangements. Policy makers hope with this potential contracting risk and liability gone, manufacturers and healthcare payers will increase their participation in value-based drug pricing agreements.
In 1990, the Medicaid Prescription Drug Rebate Program (MDRP) was created to help slow the expenditures of outpatient prescription drugs to Medicaid patients. Under the MDRP, drug manufacturers who want their drugs covered by state-run Medicaid programs must sign a National Drug Rebate Agreement (NDRA) with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The NDRA requires participating manufacturers to reveal the lowest available price of their products and pay rebates on their products. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), there are around 780 drug manufacturers with NDRAs currently in effect.
The rebates of the Medicaid Best Price Policy
Under the MDRP, manufacturers must inform CMS of the “best price” available for its products. Excluding the price negotiated with some government programs, manufacturers are required to report the lowest price it offers to any drug wholesaler, retail outlet, or healthcare provider. This best price is then used to calculate rebates. Manufacturers pay rebates quarterly to states for the drugs covered under state Medicaid programs.
The rebate for most brand name drugs (excluding certain clotting drugs and pediatric drugs) is 23.1% of the average manufacturer price (AMP) paid by wholesalers and retail pharmacies. If the difference between the AMP and the best price on the market is more than the AMP, then this percentage would become the rebate. The rebate amount for generic drugs does not include a best price provision and stands at 13%.
Rebate analysis plays a critical role in understanding these calculations, as it enables manufacturers and payers to evaluate the financial implications of pricing agreements and compliance with regulatory requirements under the MDRP.
Outcome-based drug pricing can affect rebates
Despite the industry-wide push from stakeholders and policy makers towards value-based drug pricing arrangements, manufacturers have been wary of signing on to these agreements. They argue these outcomes-based pricing agreements could have unintended consequences that affect the AMP and best price. This, in turn, can skew the calculations for a manufacturer’s rebate liability.
In value-based drug pricing, a drug’s purchase price is linked to the effectiveness of the drug; if the drug underperforms, the manufacturer must pay a rebate, or other form of reimbursement, to the purchaser. Depending on the terms of the value-based pricing arrangement, this could be a substantial reimbursement to a payer for poor patient outcomes. The reduced price after the rebate–even if it’s paid on behalf of only one patient’s poor outcome–could become the new, lower best price.
The new Multiple Best Price policy
Before the multiple best price policy went into effect, manufacturers feared that, in theory, if the terms of a pricing agreement resulted in a 100% reimbursement to a payer for a drug proven to be ineffective, the manufacturer could find themselves in a situation where they had to give away their drug for free to every state Medicaid program.
In response to this interpretation of the best price policy–which became a regulatory barrier to value-based drug pricing arrangements–CMS revised the best price policy with the Final Rule. Under the Final Rule, as of July 2022, manufacturers can now report multiple best prices: the single best price for traditional sales and the prices negotiated under value-based pricing arrangements.
This option to report multiple best prices to CMS is only available for manufacturers who offer states the same terms negotiated in the value-based drug pricing arrangements with commercial insurances. State Medicaid programs can choose to take part in the value-based arrangements or continue to make purchases using the traditional best price.
Critique of the Multiple Best Price policy
Although CMS’ goal with the multiple best price policy was to reduce a significant regulatory barrier, this change still draws critics. And CMS has acknowledged that there will be implementation challenges. Here are some examples of criticisms of the new multiple best price policy.
• Critics find the Final Rule’s updated definition of a value-based drug pricing agreement to be too narrow or too broad. Before the Final Rule went into effect, organizations such as the Coalition for Affordable Prescription Drugs (CAPD) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) were concerned the CMS definition of value-based contracting is too narrow and will exclude some value-based pricing arrangements that are already in effect or in negotiations.
By contrast, AARP worried there is a lack of clarity on the definition of value in the Final Rule that could lead to the designation of almost any drug purchasing agreement as a value-based agreement and open the door to fewer rebates for Medicaid programs and more revenue for manufacturers. Time will tell which is the real problem.
• There may not be a non-value-based price for a drug. If a manufacturer is not offering its product outside of a value-based pricing arrangement, there may not be a single, traditional best price to report. When there are no non-value-based sales to look at, CMS advises manufacturers to use reasonable assumptions to set a non-value-based price. Critics, of course, question the loose guidance of a “reasonable assumption” and see this as an opportunity for manufacturers to game the system.
Some stakeholders are also concerned manufacturers will shift most traditional sales contracts to value-based pricing arrangements with the goal of eliminating less profitable, non-value-based best prices. AARP and National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD) have warned that the new rule could undermine the MDRP best price policy that has been so successful in reducing Medicaid drug expenditures.
• There may be technological and operational barriers for State Medicaid programs who want to take part in value-based drug pricing agreements. Like NAMD and AARP, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) worries manufacturers could be working to erode the MDRP’s best price policy by providing better rebates to commercial insurance companies under value-based pricing arrangements.
Manufacturers and CMS know that some state Medicaid programs will not have the infrastructure needed to implement value-based pricing agreements with more favorable terms. In its Technical Guidance for using multiple best prices, CMS makes suggestions for creating alternative, innovative agreements when intensive data collection and analysis are not feasible.
Related Post: Indication-specific pricing to make inroads in the U.S.
The Lyfegen Solution
A lack of resources and staff prevents some state Medicaid programs from operationalizing value-based drug pricing arrangements. Lyfgen assesses an organization’s current data gathering capacity, then offers customized solutions using its contracting software platform to support the execution of value-based drug pricing arrangements.
Lyfegen’s Platform helps healthcare insurances, pharma, and medtech companies implement and scale value-based drug pricing contracts with greater efficiency and transparency. By collecting real-world data and using intelligent algorithms, the Lyfegen solution can provide valuable insights into drug performance and cost in value-based contracts.
Lyfegen helps increase affordability and access to healthcare treatments by enabling the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare.
Contact us to learn more about Lyfegen’s software solutions and to book a demo.
.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.
Learn more about Retrospective Payment System
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.
