Buying cures versus renting health: Financing health care with consumer loans

Gene therapy for ultrarare diseases: a geneticist's perspective

Gene therapy has made considerable strides in recent years. More than 4000 protein-coding genes have been implicated in more than 6000 genetic diseases; next-generation sequencing has dramatically revolutionized the diagnosis of genetic diseases. Most genetic diseases are considered very rare or ultrarare, defined here as having fewer than 1:100,000 cases, but only one of the 12 approved gene therapies (excluding RNA therapies) targets an ultrarare disease. This article explores three gene supplementation therapy approaches suitable for various rare genetic diseases: lentiviral vector-modified autologous CD34+ hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, systemic delivery of adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors to the liver, and local AAV delivery to the cerebrospinal fluid and brain. Together with RNA therapies, we propose a potential business model for these gene therapies.

The estimated annual financial impact of gene therapy in the United States

Gene therapy is a new class of medical treatment that alters part of a patient's genome through the replacement, deletion, or insertion of genetic material. While still in its infancy, gene therapy has demonstrated immense potential to treat and even cure previously intractable diseases. Nevertheless, existing gene therapy prices are high, raising concerns about its affordability for U.S. payers and its availability to patients. We assess the potential financial impact of novel gene therapies by developing and implementing an original simulation model which entails the following steps: identifying the 109 late-stage gene therapy clinical trials underway before January 2020, estimating the prevalence and incidence of their corresponding diseases, applying a model of the increase in quality-adjusted life years for each therapy, and simulating the launch prices and expected spending of all available gene therapies annually. The results of our simulation suggest that annual spending on gene therapies will be approximately $20.4 billion, under conservative assumptions. We decompose the estimated spending by treated age group as a proxy for insurance type, finding that approximately one-half of annual spending will on the use of gene therapies to treat non-Medicare-insured adults and children. We conduct multiple sensitivity analyses regarding our assumptions and model parameters. We conclude by considering the tradeoffs of different payment methods and policies that intend to ensure patient access to the expected benefits of gene therapy.

Confronting High Costs And Clinical Uncertainty: Innovative Payment Models For Gene Therapies

Gene therapies offer potentially life-changing benefits for patients, but their unprecedented high prices exacerbate challenges for reimbursement. Payers must confront high budgetary impacts, as a large up-front payment for each patient makes it difficult to predict and absorb costs. Payers also face considerable clinical uncertainty, as evidence for efficacy and durability is limited at approval. Alternative payment models may address these reimbursement problems and ensure equitable patient access. We developed a taxonomy of possible payment mechanisms for gene therapies, including installments, risk pools, reinsurance, price-volume agreements, expenditure caps, subscriptions, outcomes-based payments and rebates, warranties, population outcomes-based agreements, and coverage with evidence development. We illustrate how these payment models take three main approaches: amortization, which mitigates initial budget impact by spreading payments over time; risk spreading, which makes budgets more predictable by pooling costs with other payers or capping costs based on expected volume; and performance-based payment, which addresses clinical uncertainty by tying prices to patient- or population-level outcomes. We discuss each payment model, its advantages and challenges, and considerations for US payers.

Customer Value Creation—A Case Study of Indian Health Insurance Industry from Value Net Perspective

In the current era of digital business ecosystem, firms have been looking for fresh perspectives to frame its business strategies and create value for customers. Competitive advantage can be generated only when the value created by a firm for its customers exceeds the cost of creating such value. Creating value for customers in health insurance has been a strategic priority for insurance firms. Indian health insurance firms are competing in the area of launching new products which are technology driven and are striving to provide more value to the society through their services. This study explored the value creation process in the health insurance industry. Using case study research with health insurance industry as unit of analysis, this study explored the interactions between stakeholders within the boundaries of the health insurance ecosystem. The role of the stakeholders was explicated using the value net framework which categorised them into customers, competitors/substitutes and suppliers. A value creation framework based on stakeholder collaboration was proposed for the health insurance industry which would further enhance the competitive advantage of health insurance firms in India.

The Payer License Agreement, or "Netflix model," for hepatitis C virus therapies enables universal treatment access, lowers costs and incentivizes innovation and competition

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High unit prices of treatments limit access. For epidemics like that of hepatitis C virus (HCV), reduced treatment access increases prevalence and incidence, making the infectious disease increasingly difficult to manage. The objective of the current study was to construct and test an alternative pricing model, the Payer License Agreement (PLA), and determine whether it could improve outcomes, cut costs and incentivize innovation versus the current unit-based pricing model.

METHODS

We built and used computational models of hepatitis C disease progression, treatment, and pricing in historical and future scenarios and quantitatively analyzed their economic and epidemiological impact in three high-income countries.

RESULTS

This study had three key results regarding HCV treatment. First, if the PLA model had been implemented when interferon-free direct-acting antiviral (DAA) combinations launched, the number of patients treated and cured would have more than doubled in the first three years, while the liver-related deaths (LRDs) would have decreased by around 40%. Second, if the PLA model had been implemented beginning in 2018, the year that several Netflix-like payment models were under implementation, the number of treated and cured patients would nearly double, and the LRDs would decline by more than 55%. Third, implementing the PLA model would result in a decline in total payer costs of more than 25%, with an increase to pharmaceutical manufacturer revenues of 10%. These results were true across the three healthcare landscapes studied, the USA, the UK and Italy, and were robust against variations to critical model parameters through sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These results suggest that implementation of the PLA model in high-income countries across a variety of health system contexts would improve patient outcomes at lower payer cost with more stable revenue for pharmaceutical manufacturers. Health policy-makers in high-income countries should consider the PLA model for application to more cost-effective management of HCV, and explore its application for other infectious diseases with curative therapies available now or soon.

Assessing potential cures: are there distinctive elements of value beyond health gain?

Assessing the 'value' of potential cures can be challenging, as some have suggested that cures may offer distinctive benefits from noncurative treatments. We explore what these - previously unspecified - additional benefits may be. We suggest that three new elements of value seem distinctive to cures: liberation from the identity of being diseased, liberation from the stigma associated with the disease and liberation from the burden of ongoing therapy. However, including additional elements of value in health technology assessment may result in double counting and requires consideration of potential opportunity costs. We suggest health technology assessment should explore the relevance of these three elements of value and may have good reasons to - judiciously - integrate them through the deliberative process.

Barriers and Opportunities for Implementation of Outcome-Based Spread Payments for High-Cost, One-Shot Curative Therapies

Background: The challenging market access of high-cost one-time curative therapies has inspired the development of alternative reimbursement structures, such as outcome-based spread payments, to mitigate their unaffordability and answer remaining uncertainties. This study aimed to provide a broad overview of barriers and possible opportunities for the practical implementation of outcome-based spread payments for the reimbursement of one-shot therapies in European healthcare systems. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed investigating published literature and publicly available documents to identify barriers and implementation opportunities for both spreading payments and for implementing outcome-based agreements. Data was analyzed via qualitative content analysis by extracting data with a reporting template. Results: A total of 1,503 publications were screened and 174 were included. Main identified barriers for the implementation of spread payments are reaching an agreement on financial terms while considering 12-months budget cycles and the possible violation of corresponding international accounting rules. Furthermore, outcome correction of payments is currently hindered by the need for additional data collection, the lack of clear governance structures and the resulting administrative burden and cost. The use of spread payments adjusted by population- or individual-level data collected within automated registries and overseen by a governance committee and external advisory board may alleviate several barriers and may support the reimbursement of highly innovative therapies. Conclusion: High-cost advanced therapy medicinal products pose a substantial affordability challenge on healthcare systems worldwide. Outcome-based spread payments may mitigate the initial budget impact and alleviate existing uncertainties; however, their effective implementation still faces several barriers and will be facilitated by realizing the required organizational changes.

Application of Managed Entry Agreements for Innovative Therapies in Different Settings and Combinations: A Feasibility Analysis

The reimbursement of expensive, innovative therapies poses a challenge to healthcare systems. This study investigated the feasibility of managed entry agreements (MEAs) for innovative therapies in different settings and combinations. First, a systematic literature review included studies describing used or conceptual agreements between payers and manufacturers (i.e., MEAs). Identical and similar MEAs were clustered and data were extracted on their benefits and limitations. A feasibility assessment was performed for each individual MEA based on how it could be applied (financial/outcome-based), on what level (individual patients/target population), in which payment setting (centralized pricing and reimbursement authority yes/no), for what type of therapies (one-time/chronic), within what payment structures, and whether combinations with other MEAs were feasible. The literature search ultimately included 82 papers describing 117 MEAs. After clustering, 15 unique MEAs remained, each describing one or multiple similar agreements. Four of those entailed payment structures, while eleven entailed agreements between payers and manufacturers regarding price, usage, and/or evidence generation. The feasibility assessment indicated that most agreements could be applied throughout the different settings that were assessed and could be applied in different payment structures and in combination with multiple other agreements. The potential to combine multiple agreements leads to a multitude of different reimbursement mechanisms that may manage the price, usage, payment structure, and additional conditions for an innovative therapy. This overview of the feasibility of combinations of MEAs can help decision-makers construct a reimbursement mechanism most suited to their preferences, the type of therapy under evaluation, and the applicable healthcare system.

Health care and the future of economic growth: exploring alternative perspectives

The strong and positive relationship between gross domestic product (GDP) and health expenditure is one of the most extensively explored topics in health economics. Since the global financial crisis, a variety of theories attempting to explain the slow recovery of the global economy have predicted that future economic growth will be slower than in the past. Others have increasingly questioned whether GDP growth is desirable or sustainable in the long term as evidence grows of humanity's impact on the natural environment. This paper reviews recent data on trends in global GDP growth and health expenditure. It examines a range of theories and scenarios concerning future global GDP growth prospects. It then considers the potential implications for health care systems and health financing policy of these different scenarios. In all cases, a core question concerns whether growth in GDP and/or growth in health expenditure in fact increases human health and well-being. Health care systems in low growth or ‘post-growth’ futures will need to be much more tightly focused on reducing overtreatment and low value care, reducing environmental impact, and on improving technical and allocative efficiency. This will require much more concerted policy and regulatory action to reduce industry rent-seeking behaviours.

Uncertainty and Cures: Discontinuation, Irreversibility, and Outcomes-Based Payments: What Is Different About a One-Off Treatment?

Payers are concerned that one-off "cures" bring great uncertainty with the consequential risk of incorrect adoption decisions, and significant budget impact from large one-off payments. Innovators worry about bias against "cures" in favor of repeat treatment, which is not in patients' interests. We find that even in the absence of a difference in uncertainty of outcomes, adverse pay-offs differ. The greater financial risk associated with a cure is related to the issue of treatment discontinuation, driven by irreversibility. This paper uses a stylized example to illustrate the need to separate three different elements of the issue: (i) one-off versus repeat or ongoing treatment, (ii) duration of treatment effect, and (iii) the potential role of financial arrangements or risk sharing to mitigate the financial risk to the payer. It concludes that: (i) prevalence and discontinuation issues mean that the impact on the payer of an incorrect decision is greater with a one-off treatment than a repeat therapy; (ii) with evidence collection this risk diminishes over time (a form of CED or OWR); and (iii) financial arrangements or risk sharing can eliminate differences for the payer as between one-off and repeat therapy. The impact of (iii) also addresses payer concerns about budget impact.

Paying for Cures: How Can We Afford It? Managed Care Pharmacy Stakeholder Perceptions of Policy Options to Address Affordability of Prescription Drugs

BACKGROUND

High-priced medications with curative potential, such as the newer hepatitis C therapies, have contributed to the recent growth in pharmaceutical expenditure. Despite the obvious benefits, health care decision makers are just beginning to grapple with questions of how to value and pay for curative therapies that may feature large upfront cost, followed by health benefits that are reaped over a patient's lifespan. Alternative policy options have been proposed to promote high value and financially sustainable use of these therapies. It is unclear which policy options would be most acceptable to health care payer and biomedical manufacturer stakeholders.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) briefly review pharmaceutical policy options to address health system affordability and (b) assess the acceptability of alternative policy options to health care payers and biomedical manufacturers before and after an Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) continuing pharmacy education (CPE) session.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Cochran databases for pharmaceutical policy options addressing affordability. With input from a focus group of managed care professionals, we developed CPE session content and an 8-question survey focusing on the most promising policy options. We fielded the survey before and after the CPE session, which occurred as part of the 2016 AMCP Annual Meeting. We first conducted a chi-squared goodness-of-fit test to assess response distributions. Next, we tested how responses differed before and after by using an ordered logit and a multinomial logit to model Likert scale and unordered responses, respectively.

RESULTS

Although risk-sharing payments over time remained the most favorable choice before (37%) and after (35%) the CPE session, this choice was closely followed by HealthCoin after the session, which increased in favorability from 4% to 33% of responses (P = 0.001). About half of the respondents (54%) indicated that legislative change is the most significant barrier to the implementation of any policy.

CONCLUSIONS

As high-cost curative drugs reach the market, managed care stakeholders need information from a balanced education source regarding alternative policies to address affordability. We found that after the AMCP CPE session, risk-sharing payments over time and HealthCoin were the most favorable options.

DISCLOSURES

No funding was provided for this research. Carlson reports consulting fees from Genentech, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics. The other authors have nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed by Yeung, Garrison, and Carlson. Yeung collected the data, which were interpreted by Yeung and Basu. The manuscript was written by Yeung, Suh, and Bansal and revised by Yeung. A portion of this research was presented at the Academy of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting as a continuing education session entitled "Paying for Cures: How Can We Afford It?" on April 20, 2016, in San Francisco, California.

Paying for Cures: Perspectives on Solutions to the "Affordability Issue"

Curative therapies and other medicines considered "game-changing" in terms of health gain can be accompanied by high demand and high list prices that pose budget challenges to public and private payers and health systems-the so-called affordability issue. These challenges are exacerbated when longer term effectiveness, and thus value for money, is uncertain, but they can arise even when treatments are proven to be highly cost-effective at the time of launch. This commentary reviews innovative payment solutions proposed in the literature to address the affordability issue, including the use of credit markets and of staged payments linked to patient outcomes, and draws on discussions with payers in the United States and Europe on the feasibility or desirability of operationalizing any of the alternative financing and payment strategies that appear in the literature. This included a small number of semistructured interviews. We conclude that there is a mismatch between the enthusiasm in the academic literature for developing new approaches and the scepticism of payers that they can work or are necessary. For the foreseeable future, affordability pressures will continue to be handled by aggressive price bargaining, high co-pays (in systems in which this is possible), and restricting access to subgroups of patients. Of the mechanisms we explored, outcomes-based payments were of most interest to payers, but the costs associated with operating such schemes, together with implementation challenges, did not make them an attractive option for managing affordability.

Resolving the "Cost-Effective but Unaffordable" Paradox: Estimating the Health Opportunity Costs of Nonmarginal Budget Impacts

Considering whether or not a proposed investment (an intervention, technology, or program of care) is affordable is really asking whether the benefits it offers are greater than its opportunity cost. To say that an investment is cost-effective but not affordable must mean that the (implicit or explicit) "threshold" used to judge cost-effectiveness does not reflect the scale and value of the opportunity costs. Existing empirical estimates of health opportunity costs are based on cross-sectional variation in expenditure and mortality outcomes by program budget categories (PBCs) and do not reflect the likely effect of nonmarginal budget impacts on health opportunity costs. The UK Department of Health regularly updates the needs-based target allocation of resources to local areas of the National Health Service (NHS), creating two subgroups of local areas (those under target allocation and those over). These data provide the opportunity to explore how the effects of changes in health care expenditure differ with available resources. We use 2008-2009 data to evaluate two econometric approaches to estimation and explore a range of criteria for accepting subgroup specific effects for differences in expenditure and outcome elasticities across the 23 PBCs. Our results indicate that health opportunity costs arising from an investment imposing net increases in expenditure are underestimated unless account is taken of likely nonmarginal effects. They also indicate the benefits (reduced health opportunity costs or increased value-based price of a technology) of being able to "smooth" these nonmarginal budget impacts by health care systems borrowing against future budgets or from manufacturers offering "mortgage" type arrangements.

Gene therapy: evidence, value and affordability in the US health care system

AIMS

To explore the challenges presented by gene therapies, discuss potential solutions, and present policy recommendations.

METHODS

A review of the literature and series of expert interviews were conducted and discussed at a Policy Forum convened by The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). The Policy Forum was attended by independent experts and senior representatives from 20 payer organizations and life sciences companies.

RESULTS

Three categories of challenges are identified: evidence generation, assessing value and affordability. Possible solutions and policy recommendations are presented for each of the three main categories of challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Gene therapies present exciting opportunities, but also pose major challenges. Dialogue between manufacturers and payers around the issues and possible solutions is crucial.

Introduction and Utilization of High Priced HCV Medicines across Europe; Implications for the Future

BACKGROUND

Infection with the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) is a widespread transmittable disease with a diagnosed prevalence of 2.0%. Fortunately, it is now curable in most patients. Sales of medicines to treat HCV infection grew 2.7% per year between 2004 and 2011, enhanced by the launch of the protease inhibitors (PIs) boceprevir (BCV) and telaprevir (TVR) in addition to ribavirin and pegylated interferon (pegIFN). Costs will continue to rise with new treatments including sofosbuvir, which now include interferon free regimens.

OBJECTIVE

Assess the uptake of BCV and TVR across Europe from a health authority perspective to offer future guidance on dealing with new high cost medicines.

METHODS

Cross-sectional descriptive study of medicines to treat HCV (pegIFN, ribavirin, BCV and TVR) among European countries from 2008 to 2013. Utilization measured in defined daily doses (DDDs)/1000 patients/quarter (DIQs) and expenditure in Euros/DDD. Health authority activities to influence treatments categorized using the 4E methodology (Education, Engineering, Economics and Enforcement).

RESULTS

Similar uptake of BCV and TVR among European countries and regions, ranging from 0.5 DIQ in Denmark, Netherlands and Slovenia to 1.5 DIQ in Tayside and Catalonia in 2013. However, different utilization of the new PIs vs. ribavirin indicates differences in dual vs. triple therapy, which is down to factors including physician preference and genotypes. Reimbursed prices for BCV and TVR were comparable across countries.

CONCLUSION

There was reasonable consistency in the utilization of BCV and TVR among European countries in comparison with other high priced medicines. This may reflect the social demand to limit the transmission of HCV. However, the situation is changing with new curative medicines for HCV genotype 1 (GT1) with potentially an appreciable budget impact. These concerns have resulted in different prices across countries, with their impact on budgets and patient outcomes monitored in the future to provide additional guidance.