Gene Therapies: Negotiating the Priceless-Insights from the Lyfegen 2024 Drug Contracting Trends Report
READ MORE
Insights & Articles
The transition to value-based care is happening at a slower pace than policymakers and healthcare industry leaders had hoped. Stakeholders are struggling to negotiate and then operationalize these complex agreements.
The adoption of value-based drug pricing agreements is not widespread in the U.S., despite the stated strong interest from policymakers and the healthcare industry in tying the price of drugs to their benefit to patient outcomes and value to the health system. Outside of the government Medicare and Medicaid programs, the fee-for-service, volume-based payment model still accounted for almost 56% of commercial health payer contracts as of 2018.
Many value-based pharmaceutical arrangements are not disclosed publicly, making it difficult to know how many are implemented in the U.S. each year. According to the trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), there were 73 publicly disclosed value-based drug contracts at the end of 2019. A study published the same year in the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC) suggested that, because of the confidentiality surrounding most agreements, analysts are underestimating the number of value-based pricing arrangements in effect and their impact on the U.S. pharmaceutical market.
In this article, we will highlight some concerns a payer and manufacturer considering a value-based drug pricing arrangement may each face, and give some insight into why these agreements aren't more widely accepted.
Payers modeling risk
A 2019 survey by the National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC) and the Duke-Margolis Center for Health policy showed that for payers, top deal-breakers in negotiations for value-based pricing arrangements were disagreements over incentive mechanisms for participation and financial terms. From the payer’s standpoint, a new, high-cost drug–especially one that addresses unmet needs or rare and orphan diseases–is worth the risk if it brings innovative, effective treatment for patients who may have no other options. But payers want to share that risk with the manufacturer when there’s the potential for a substantial impact on the payer’s budget.
Based on publicly available information, oncology, hematology, cardiology, and endocrinology drug treatments are common subjects of value-based pricing arrangements. These treatments have well-defined patient populations, easy-to-see impact measures, endpoints, and cures that make them more appealing to payers. It’s much more difficult to objectively measure the patient health outcomes for treatments covering pain management or mental health.
Payers also prefer treatments that show clinical results in a few months, not years. Tracking a patient’s health to confirm a drug’s value becomes more difficult when a drug takes years to show evidence of long-term benefits. For example, a longer-term benefit of treatment may be the avoidance of hospitalization. In the U.S., patients may leave a payer’s plan at any time, so this future cost may not be captured in the data collection under a current agreement.
Related Post: Value-based pricing vs best price? Medicaid's best price problem
Manufacturers sharing risk
When considering coverage of a new drug, payers might question the results of clinical trials, especially if there is limited real-world data because of an expedited FDA approval. So manufacturers must continue to create opportunities to generate real-world evidence that convinces payers of their drug’s value. And they must be ready and willing to share in the risk that a drug may not meet expectations in phase 4 confirmatory trials.
When a new drug has strong competition in the market, manufacturers need real-world evidence to differentiate their product and show their treatment brings better clinical outcomes and value than other options available. Value-based drug pricing agreements are an opportunity to fill that knowledge gap. Pharmaceutical companies not willing to do them to get that real-world evidence may lose out to those who are ready to take on innovative pharmaceutical agreements.
Contract partners building data-gathering and analytics capacity
In the 2019 NPC survey, manufacturers cited data collection challenges and disagreements on outcome measures among their top deal breakers.
Choosing the right contract model to fit the product and the capabilities of the contract partners is the first step. This means researching publicly available value-based drug pricing arrangements to learn the rewards and pitfalls of various contract models. All the contract partners must agree on the key metrics to be measured and how the data will be used to determine a drug’s value to patient health outcomes.
For the data-sharing component of value-based pricing arrangements, contract partners must develop a relationship that includes trust, cooperation, and an unusual level of transparency. Sometimes this relationship is best fostered and protected by the support services of a neutral third party, especially when one or both of the contract partners doesn’t have the technical capacity or administrative staff to operationalize a value-based drug pricing agreement.
The Lyfegen Solution
Value-based drug pricing arrangements are hard, but Lyfegen can make them easier. If your organization is considering a value-based pricing agreement, start by researching real-world examples of drug pricing arrangements in Lyfegen’s Models and Agreements Library. With a collection of more than 20 drug pricing models and over 1000 value-based agreements in use worldwide, the Lyfegen Library can help you discern what pricing arrangement is appropriate for your goals, your current operational capabilities, and your contract partners.
Lyfegen’s value-based contracting software can then operationalize the contract model you choose. We help 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.
By enabling the shift away from volume-based, fee-for-service healthcare to value-based healthcare, Lyfegen increases access to healthcare treatments and their affordability.
To learn more about Lyfegen’s software solutions, contact us to book a demo.
.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.
