Industry experts agree outcome-based contracting is vital to the future of cell and gene therapies
Manufacturers, payers, and health systems disagree on how to assess the value of new, high-cost treatments such as cell and gene therapies. These stakeholders see a solution in outcome-based drug pricing agreements.
Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen, was recently invited to take part in a roundtable discussion about cell and gene therapies (CGTs), hosted by the global consulting firm, Oliver Wyman. Over 20 industry leaders, payers, and third-party solution providers were in attendance.
Oliver Wyman released a white paper that summarizes the insights, challenges, and opportunities uncovered during the discussion. A major area of concern among the participants is preparing and equipping payers and health systems with the means to assess the value and health benefits of new, high-cost CGTs.
Outcome-based contracting is the future for cell and gene therapies
According to marketresearch.com, the global CGTs market—valued just short of USD $5 billion in 2021—is forecast to reach almost USD $37 billion by 2027. In anticipation of an estimated total of 60 CGTs available on the market by the end of the decade, industry and health system stakeholders recognize the need to move towards contracting that includes an outcome-based drug pricing component.
The roundtable participants agreed that using outcome-based contracts (OBCs) for CGTs is a critical lever for ensuring patient access to innovative therapies. OBCs can reward manufacturers for new drug development while addressing the payers’ concerns about clinical effectiveness and management of financial risk.
Why outcome-based contracting is best for cell and gene therapies
The Oliver Wyman white paper lists a few reasons CGTs are well suited for value-based drug pricing through outcome-based contracting, including:
• A lack of real-world clinical evidence about the therapy when first introduced to market
• Uncertainty about the product’s value proposition
• High perceived cost versus the current standard of care
Fernando adds an additional perspective to the conversation: “Another underlying need for OBCs and underlying innovative payment models is the fact that the Pharma’s business model is changed with CGTs. Since they promise significant patient benefit, and in many cases even cure, this cure is being priced into one price. This contrasts with the previous pharma model of gaining continuous revenue by supplying continuous treatments over several cycles.”
Challenges to implementation of outcome-based contracts
At present, several challenges hinder the widespread adoption of outcome-based agreements. Oliver Wyman’s analyses point to difficulties such as agreement on a starting price, deciding how to measure patient outcomes, and choosing appropriate follow-up timelines.
Another one of the fundamental difficulties in executing OBCs is capturing quality real-world data. There was consensus among the roundtable participants about the need to collaborate to build innovative multi-stakeholder data infrastructure and systems that support real-world evidence collection about patient outcomes. Current attempts to build performance data gathering into existing data systems often lead to increased fragmentation of data across different systems that are not interoperable.
For many reasons, the real-world data that is available is often incomplete or of poor quality. All industry and health system stakeholders want to balance transparency with safeguarding proprietary information. Healthcare providers don’t see data collection as their priority; they must be incentivized or compensated for taking on this additional administrative burden. And patients asked to self-report outcomes want to feel in control of how and with whom they share their health outcomes.
Collecting quality patient data
Empowering patients as decision-makers in their care encourages them to report their treatment results. Regarding patient self-reporting of health outcomes, Fernando poses some additional considerations:
“Should patients receiving a CGT also have a “responsibility” in terms of data reporting etc. as health systems commit to curing these patients? This would be needed to track long-term outcomes of patients, as well as provide a positive effect on evidence & learnings.”
Fernando also sees more patient-centric opportunities for growth: “In addition to the CGT, what other kinds of services should be built around these patients to improve patient health outcomes?”
A supportive ecosystem for outcome-based contracts
The roundtable identified three key principles for advancing the data infrastructure and ecosystem needed for executing OBC: data ownership, data interoperability, and data access and security. They uplifted the role of third-party innovators and solution providers like Lyfegen, whose value-based contracting software addresses these difficult IT issues and simplifies the execution of complex pricing models. By facilitating the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare, Lyfegen increases affordability and access to high-cost healthcare treatments like CGTs.
The Lyfegen Platform
Lyfegen’s software platform helps healthcare insurances, pharma, and medtech companies implement and scale value-based drug pricing contracts with greater efficiency and transparency. The Lyfegen Platform collects real-world data and uses intelligent algorithms to provide valuable insights on drug performance and cost in value-based contracts.
To learn more about the Lyfegen Platform and software solutions, contact us to book a demo.