Why Q1 Is Critical for Pharma Rebate Management
READ MORE
Insights & Articles
5 min
Advanced gene therapies that could “practically cure” patients suffering from sickle-cell disease (SCD) are just over the horizon. But they may not reach the people who need them most, many of whom are minorities with fewer financial resources and are reliant on Medicaid for their health coverage. Figuring out how to pay for their treatment looms as one of the biggest questions – both economic and ethical - facing US public health policymakers in the coming years.
Amid Medicaid’s efforts to cut spending, the dilemma of how to cover these drugs could end up increasing rancor and anger in the country – or it could spur budgetary creativity. While programs like Medicaid have traditionally filled the gap between availability and lack of affordability in treatment, the cost of SCD therapies developed by Vertex and CRISPR – estimated at nearly $2 million a dose – could quickly overwhelm even Medicaid's robust resources, especially in states that have higher rates of the disease. And this is just the beginning. As more ultra-expensive drug and cell therapies are developed for numerous conditions in the coming years, the question of how to pay for them looms large.
The American healthcare system has been long accused of discriminating against the poor and minorities – and that discrimination is likely to come into far greater focus when millions of the poorest Americans who could benefit from new therapies are unable to take advantage of them. Altogether, there are over 40,000 SCD patients on Medicare in any given year - about 60% of the estimated 100,000 victims of the disease in the US. Of the 74,817 hospitalized for sickle cell disease in 2023, 69,889 (93.4%) were African-American; on average, one of every 13 Black babies are born with sickle-cell trait (SCT), a forerunner of the disease. Even for SCD patients who can afford private insurance, the out-of-pocket cost for therapy is very burdensome. But for the poor and others who lack private health coverage, Medicaid is a singular life raft – the difference between life and a possibly very abrupt death.
Given the situation, it's likely that patient advocacy groups will make a strong bid for increased government funding. And given the issues of social justice and racism surrounding the historic lack of interest in SCD by the medical establishment, there's a good chance that funding will be forthcoming. But budgets are still budgets; if Medicaid is going to spend more on SCD therapies, it is going to have to cut other payments, especially given the strong pressure to cut Medicaid spending – both on the federal and state level, even in states where the incidence of SCD is high.
This could be the time for Medicaid to follow in the footsteps of Medicare, and implement changes in the way it pays for treatments, specifically implementing models where payment is based on patient outcome. Indeed, Medicaid has proposed doing this, but it must move much faster if it wants to help those with SCD benefit from treatments expected to be approved by the end of the year.
Medicare recently adopted a limited form of results-based drug pricing for some of its most expensive drugs. The legislation initially covers ten high-priced drugs, with the list expanded to 20 by the end of the decade. Under the program, the government will pay a price closer to that demanded by the drug’s maker if a drug does in fact significantly reduce the costs of lifetime treatment. But if a drug does not have the desired result, the cost would be significantly lower. Experts are predicting significant savings for the government.
Medicaid, through CMS/CMMI, plans to do something similar - negotiate results--based contracts for gene-based therapies on behalf of all 50 state Medicaid programs. According to government data, the lifetime cost for treating SCD patients through 64 years of age is also close to $2 million. So Medicaid would be spending roughly the same amount on each patient receiving gene-based therapies, while reducing or eliminating costs for treatment of those over 64. These outcome-based contracts, also called value-based contracts, would allow drug-makers to be paid full price only if the treatment does end up working. These contracts could also allow Medicaid to pay in installments, rather than upfront. In addition, if treatment works faster or better than expected in some patients, there could be room in these contracts for drugmakers to be paid more, or paid earlier. Drug companies and science would also benefit from the extended real-world data involved in these contracts, which track the progress of treated patients for years.
But this model is likely to come too late for many with SCD: CMS/CMMI will only be running a pilot negotiation program in 2026 at the earliest. This means that it's very possible that Medicaid will have to, at least temporarily, ignore very promising gene-based therapies that could help hundreds of thousands of people because it can't pay for them.
Meanwhile, the public pressure and demand for widespread implementation of SCD gene therapies is likely to be very high. Lives are at stake; as is correcting a historic injustice. So how will officials deal with an increase in public pressure to pay for therapies? One possibility is to appeal to the private sector for help. Infact, the NIH will be partnering with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to provide some $200 million to increase the development of affordable gene therapies for SCD and HIV by providing funding to researchers to develop lower-cost therapies, and assistance to those who need treatment. Another option could be transferring unused state Medicaid allocations for SCD from states with very low incidence rates, like Idaho, to states with higher incidence rates, like Mississippi.
Regardless of the solution Medicaid adopts, there's no question that a storm has been raging for years over who gets what in the American healthcare system – and that storm is likely to strengthen as gene-based therapies for SCD become available. Given the history of how the establishment has dealt with that disease – and the people who are its biggest victims – it's likely that changes to how Medicaid pays for expensive therapies will come sooner rather than later. These changes must happen, or inequality in the American health system will only become worse as the pipeline of life-changing gene and cell therapies grows.
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
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.
READ MORE
Rising drug costs continue to challenge healthcare systems worldwide. In the UK, the proposed Voluntary Pricing Access Scheme (VPAG) and the NHS’s Accelerated Access Collaborative (AAC) are clear signals of the need for sustainable, transparent approaches to branded medicine pricing. These frameworks aim to control costs through 2028 while ensuring patient access to innovative treatments. Drug rebate management solutions are key to navigating these evolving frameworks. By automating complex workflows, providing real-time insights, and streamlining rebate tracking, these tools reduce administrative burdens, enhance transparency, and unlock significant cost savings.
Key Benefits of Modern Drug Rebate Management Solutions
Traditional rebate management involves resource-heavy processes prone to delays and errors. Modern drug rebate management solutions automate tasks like reconciliation, reporting, and contract tracking, enabling healthcare providers to focus on negotiating better contracts and ensuring compliance with policies like VPAG.
Rebate platforms provide granular visibility into contracts, helping organizations identify cost-effective therapies and maximize rebate potential. This transparency aligns with NHS AAC’s goal of improving value and ensuring public funds are spent efficiently.
Access to live rebate and claims data allows stakeholders to evaluate agreement performance and adjust strategies quickly. With real-time insights, healthcare providers can ensure rebates are optimized, costs are minimized, and patient access is preserved.
This capability supports NHS AAC’s commitment to accelerating access to innovative medicines while maintaining value for taxpayers.
Delayed reconciliation often creates inefficiencies and compliance risks. Modern drug rebate management solutions provide real-time rebate tracking and payment reconciliation, ensuring accurate auditing and faster resolution of discrepancies. These features are critical for meeting the transparency and accountability goals of initiatives like VPAG.
Why Now?
The VPAG and AAC frameworks prioritize:
Modern drug rebate management solutions directly address these priorities by simplifying rebate processes, supporting compliance, and enabling healthcare providers to align with evolving regulatory frameworks.
Smarter Practices in Action
Lyfegen is an all-in-one platform designed to streamline rebate workflows, improve transparency, and deliver actionable analytics. By leveraging tools like Lyfegen, healthcare organizations can navigate regulatory changes like VPAG with confidence, ensuring efficient operations and measurable savings.
Looking ahead
As healthcare systems face rising costs and increasing complexity, adopting a modern drug rebate management solution is no longer optional, it’s essential. These tools provide the automation, transparency, and real-time insights needed to comply with frameworks like VPAG while driving cost savings and supporting innovation.
Ready to simplify your rebate workflows? Sign up for a demo today to see how smarter solutions can transform your strategy.
Sign up & be the first to know about INNOVATIONS
* By sending this message, you agree to our privacy policy.
