The Health and Social Consortium of Catalonia to Develop New Value-Based Purchasing Models Incorporating New Tools for Negotiation with the Pharmaceutical Industry
READ MORE
Insights & Articles
5 min
24.3.2024
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 goal of this innovative initiative is to increase the processes of value-based drug procurement, allowing CSC-affiliated health centers to focus on the evaluation of the clinical, economic, and social benefits that the drug can provide in relation to its cost.
For the design of these new procurement models, the "Lyfegen Agreements Library" database and the “Lyfegen Drug Contracting Simulator” were used, and work was done on the automation of administrative tasks and on improving interoperability among hospitals and health administrations. These tools allow the CSC to model various agreements and improve the drug management process in the central contracting office. The Health and Social Consortium of Catalonia thus becomes the first organization in Spain to incorporate these tools.
"From the Consortium, we are convinced that access to innovation and the sustainability of the health system relies on reaching innovative management agreements with pharmaceutical laboratories," says Josep Maria Guiu, director of the Pharmacy and Medication Area of the CSC. "The alliance with Lyfegen gives us a tool to work in this direction and to advance in the establishment of satisfactory agreements that facilitate access to innovation and contribute to the sustainability of the health system."
Girisha Fernando, CEO of Lyfegen, comments that "We are proud to help the Consortium lead access to innovation to improve patient care in Catalonia." "By using our advanced solutions, more than 100 health organizations throughout the region can research, model, and efficiently manage agreements, as well as value-based drug procurement," he adds.
“This allows professionals to really focus on what matters most: patient care.”
The collaboration with Lyfegen reflects the commitment of the Health and Social Consortium of Catalonia to value-based drug procurement and to access to pharmacological innovation, as well as the will to continue working for the implementation of solutions that ensure equity and sustainability of the health system.
The total contracting volume of the CSC, which acts as the purchasing center for the subsidized health sector of Catalonia, was 1.497 billion euros in 2023. Of this amount, 90% corresponded to medicines and 10% to sanitary products.
In recent years, the Consortium of Health and Social Services of Catalonia has incorporated social value aspects into the purchasing processes. For example, it has committed to ensuring that 100% of its drug and sanitary product tenders incorporate environmental clauses by 2024.
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 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.
The Consortium of Health and Social of Catalonia (CSC) is a public entity with a local and associative basis, founded in 1983, which has its origin in the municipal movement. The CSC, a reference to the sector and with a clear vocation for service, has as a mission: to promote excellent and sustainable health and social models to improve the quality of life of the people, offering services of high added value to its partners. CSC wants to be the main reference for knowledge and capacity for cooperation, influence and anticipation in the face of the new challenges of the health and social system. All CSC associates are public or private non-profit bodies. For more information, please visit https://www.consorci.org/el-csc/en_index
READ MORE
Pharma says they want greater competition within the industry and more incentives for pharmaceutical innovation; value-based purchasing agreements can provide both.
Value-based purchasing arrangements first appeared in the European markets in the 1990s, while U.S. healthcare markets did little with value-based contracts for pharmaceuticals until the 2000s. The high cost of new drugs coming to market, large annual increases in existing drug prices, and political pressure from lawmakers on payers to address the high cost of healthcare have encouraged stakeholders to make greater use of value-based purchasing arrangements.
It’s easy to understand the appeal of value-based purchasing agreements for private and public payers. Value-based purchasing is one way both U.S. and European payers are using to reduce overall healthcare spending.
For drug companies, value-based purchasing puts an end to their unencumbered pricing strategy. But pharmaceutical manufacturers realize value-based purchasing agreements are the best way, and maybe the only way, to get their new, higher-priced products covered by payers and into the treatment plans of patients.
How do pharmaceutical companies determine their drug prices?
Pharmaceutical companies are in business to generate as much revenue as possible without jeopardizing patients’ access to their treatments. In the U.S., where drug pricing is unregulated, pharmaceutical manufacturers can charge any price they want for their products. In the EU, member states use regulations such as direct control over pricing, referencing the average price of a drug among all EU members to set a national price, or regulating the drug manufacturers’ profit.
When deciding on a new drug’s retail price, the manufacturer considers several areas of concern such as the drug’s competition, government-granted exclusivity, patents in force, and a drug’s clinical effectiveness and benefit to patient outcomes.
Pricing a drug incorrectly can have severe consequences for the manufacturer’s bottom line. Private and public payers in the U.S. have ways of restricting patients’ access to drugs that they consider overpriced. In European countries, drug manufacturers risk being fined by authorities for unfair prices and excessive price hikes.
Value-based purchasing promotes competition in the pharmaceutical market
In the U.S., there are economic policies and legal loopholes that manipulate competition in the drug industry. The Biden administration considers this one of the key problems to address to support drug pricing reform. The president’s Executive Order 14036, the Competition Executive Order, calls for increased transparency, innovation, and competition.
Even though manufacturers take advantage of U.S. government protections that create temporary monopolies for some drugs, the large industry trade group PhRMA has joined the call for reforms that fix the current distortions in the market that stifle competition.
Manufacturers producing new drugs with in-class competition from other manufacturers—such as generics, biosimilars, or new uses or combinations of older drugs—use the real-world evidence gathered from value-based purchasing agreements to demonstrate the greater clinical value of their treatments compared to their competitors’ products. Data that show a drug’s uniqueness and effectiveness may be used to justify a manufacturer’s higher-than-average price.
In addition, manufacturers hope aligning a drug’s price to its clinical value will shift payers’ focus away from approving treatments based solely on the lowest price to covering similar treatments that might be more expensive but produce better health outcomes for patients.
Value-based purchasing incentivizes research and development (R&D) of new drugs
The post-market clinical data gathered under value-based purchasing can facilitate data-driven drug development. For example, the drug company Novartis published a position paper in which they stated they use real-world evidence to support the development of customized interventions and to invest in research in areas of the highest value for patients.
In the U.S.market in recent years, the number of clinical trials and an overall increase in spending on brand-name prescription drugs suggest that pharmaceutical manufacturers have been concentrating their research and development dollars on new high-cost specialty drugs for complex, chronic, or rare conditions they expect will be the most profitable.
New treatments like these, where the drug’s value is yet to be established for payers, are good candidates for value-based purchasing arrangements. The successful implementation of value-based purchasing contracts—with better health outcomes for patients, cost controls for payers, and fair prices for manufacturers—encourages even more data-driven drug development.
The Lyfegen Platform
Value-based purchasing agreements are a complex but necessary part of doing business for pharmaceutical manufacturers. They provide a framework for assessing a drug’s value using shared outcome measures and provide real-world evidence of the benefits of their products for patient health outcomes. Manufacturers who are unwilling to enter into value-based purchasing contracts with payers may find themselves at a disadvantage in negotiations with other stakeholders.
Lyfegen’s software platform helps healthcare insurances, pharma, and medtech companies implement and scale value-based purchasing 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. By enabling the shift away from volume-based and fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare, Lyfegen increases access to healthcare treatments and their affordability.
Value-based purchasing arrangements first appeared in the European markets in the 1990s, while U.S. healthcare markets did little with va...
Read MoreSign up & be the first to know about INNOVATIONS
* By sending this message, you agree to our privacy policy.
