Sickle cell disease gene therapies are here, but how is society going to pay for them?

On November 16th, the UK’s MHRA approved Casgevy (exagamglogene autotemcel) or exa-cel for sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia. And this month the FDA is expected to license exa-cel and lovo-cel (lovotibeglogene autotemcel), both of which attack SCD at its genetic root.

For these advanced gene therapies the challenge of access through Medicaid and other programs looms large. Medicaid will be the predominant payer for the 25,000 patients who could be eligible for these gene therapies. And it must figure out a budget-conscious way to pay for these potential one-time “cures.”

In April, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review issued a draft report on the cost-effectiveness of exa-cel and lovo-cel. ICER noted that the proportion of patients achieving treatment success was 97% for both therapies. Even at the placeholder price of nearly $2 million per dose, ICER says both treatments could be cost-effective. But ICER cautioned that a prerequisite is their durability over time and the establishment of value-based pricing agreements between payers and manufacturers.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is therefore pursuing a two-pronged approach to value-based pricing and reimbursement of cell and gene therapies such as exa-cel and lovo-cel.

First, a proposed rule would require manufacturers with the highest drug Medicaid spending per claim to turn over confidential information justifying their prices. CMS would post this information online, seek public comment, and compel manufacturers to “address” their pricing in a public forum.

Second, CMS is planning on “testing of payment models” based on outcomes-based agreements on behalf of all 50 state Medicaid programs, rather than having them done separately by individual states.

Innovative payment models such as these require the ability to analyze patient outcomes and negotiate prices based on those outcomes. Digital platforms, such as those offered by Lyfegen, are designed to implement value-based contracting models. This investment can yield operational efficiency, recovery of missed revenues, and provide critical access for patients to life-saving drug therapies.

Lyfegen offers solutions to identify the right drug pricing agreements, simulate and understand the financial impacts of those agreements, and automate the execution and adjudication of them—thus delivering a measurable reduction in administrative effort in rebate management and optimization.

‍

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.

‍