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.

BOOK A DEMO

Related blogs

Study: Out-of-pocket drug costs increasing 5.8% per year

A new study investigated how drug rebates affect out-of-pocket costs for health plan beneficiaries. Rebates lower costs for payers, but depending on the health plan, they can raise costs for the patient.

There is a lot of secrecy surrounding the final price paid for a drug at the pharmacy, as official data on drug prices does not factor in rebates or the end price for the patient. The rebates paid by manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers is not publicly available. The study therefore sought out to understand the relationship between rebates and the prices paid by insurers and beneficiaries.

Results: The negotiated price, defined as the price paid by the beneficiary at the pharmacy and by the payer after rebates are taken into account, rose 4.3% from 2007 to 2020. However, the out-of-pocket price, or that paid by the patient at the pharmacy, rose 5.8% annually. Retail pharmacy prices increased 9.1% annually.

Implications: Low-income families may be especially impacted by plans with higher deductibles and lower premiums, as they are not prepared for surprise costs associated with cost-sharing. As the authors stated: “consumers with a low deductible or capped copays appear to be shielded from steep pharmacy price increases.” The main contributor to increases in out-of-pocket expenses were increasing deductibles and co-insurance payments.

The authors emphasize that drug price transparency is important for health policy recommendations and more work needs to be done to understand drug price inflation.

‍

Ongoing debate around GLP-1 drug coverage

Payers are seeing increased costs due to the demand of GLP-1 drugs. It’s estimated that 57.4 million adults under the age of 65 could be eligible for this class of drugs, based on currently approved FDA indications. There are 36.2 million people with an obesity diagnosis alone in the US.

If 10% of eligible adults take GLP-1 medications for weight loss, a $15 increase could be seen in the per-member-per month costs. This number rises to $50 if one-third of eligible adults start taking these drugs. Zepbound, manufactured by Eli Lilly, has a list price of $1059 per month, whereas Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy costs $1349 for a one month supply. However, last month, Eli Lilly announced a major price cut for their weight loss drug. Now, a 4-week supply of their drug at 2.5 mg will cost $399, whereas 5 mg vials will cost $549.

The measure is aimed at improving patient access, while reducing the risk of counterfeit medications. This price reduction was made without changes to insurance policies, and the drugs are available through LillyDirect, the company’s online pharmacy.

Not all insurers want to cover weight loss drugs like Zepbound, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Ozempic, and innovative strategies are being explored to manage costs while keeping them available. One strategy is a utilization cap, which sets stricter standards for who is eligible. Another strategy is mentioned in Evernorth’s EncircleRX plan, which provides a 15% cost cap or a 3:1 savings guarantee when the medication is covered for weight loss.

The value of these drugs is still being investigated. If these medications can provide additional health benefits, there could be additional savings for payers down the road. Of note, studies have found reductions in cardiovascular death and sleep apnea when the drugs were used for weight loss.

‍