One-time cell and gene therapies offer promises of cures, but payment challenges remain

Roughly half a century ago, scientists first began hypothesizing that they could cure diseases by altering genes. Thanks to recent advances in the fields of molecular biology and gene editing, this hope of yesteryear has become a reality. Today, a growing number of cell and gene therapy products are being used to improve the health of patients around the world by fighting disease at the cellular level.

Most cell and gene therapy products are intended as one-time injection treatments, which in turn may offer durable cures. Until now, the overall costs - or budgetary impact to payers - of approved cell and gene therapies have mostly been manageable due to the (very) small populations being served. But this is about to change with the advent of treatments indicated for much larger populations and for much more common conditions such assickle cell disease, diabetic complications, and osteoarthritis.

However, without a feasible way for payers to pay for these treatments, patient access will remain a major impediment. In turn, this could ultimately result in a continued high societal burden for patients afflicted by diseases targeted by cell and gene therapies.

While upfront costs of cell and gene therapies can be very high on a per-unit basis, having a cure rather than a temporary and incomplete remedy or merely an alleviation of symptoms could lead to cost savings in the long run. And it’s been shown that certain cell and gene therapies may even be cost-effective in the short term, relatively soon after they’ve been administered.

But in order for this value proposition to become a more widespread accepted practice, payers must adopt a view that incorporates the concept of value-based pricing. Traditional methods of reimbursement that are commonly used for maintenance medications such as anti-hypertensives and anti-depressants, aren't applicable. As a result, payers will need to implement value-based pricing arrangements like pay-for-performance schemes or warranty programs. With these type of arrangements evidence is gathered and analyzed to assess whether a cell and gene therapy is proving effective over time—on other words, as a drug yields positive, intended outcomes for a patient, the therapy’s value is proven.

There are more than 1,000 clinical trials of cell and gene therapies underway worldwide. Consequently, experts forecast a wave of new cell and gene therapy approvals in the coming years across numerous therapeutic areas, including several with very large sub-populations numbering millions. Invariably the question becomes how patients, and the healthcare systems, will pay for these therapies.

‍

Lyfegen is already working with payers and pharmaceutical companies to implement value-based pricing arrangements in multiple markets. The Lyfegen Platform is designed to enable more efficient and transparent management of value-based drug pricing contracts for cell and gene therapies by using intelligent algorithms to capture and analyze real-world, patient-level drug cost data. Additionally, the Lyfegen Model & Agreement Library contains over 18 innovative models and more than 2,000 agreements from global payers and pharma that can be invaluable resources when identifying the right model to propose during negotiations.

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.

‍