Financing cures in the United States

A Budget Impact Analysis of Gene Therapy for Sickle Cell Disease: The Medicaid Perspective

IMPORTANCE

Hundreds of gene therapies are undergoing clinical testing and are likely to be priced more than $1 million per course of treatment. The association that high prices will have with insurance coverage of gene therapy remains unclear. Gene therapy for sickle cell disease has shown early success and would be one of the first gene therapies available for a relatively large population.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the budget impact and affordability of a gene therapy for severe sickle cell disease from the perspective of US Medicaid programs with the highest prevalence of sickle cell disease while exploring the impact of an annuity payment model.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A budget impact analysis was performed from January 1 to May 31, 2020, for a sickle cell disease gene therapy from the perspective of 10 state Medicaid plans with a 5-year time horizon, using state-level disease prevalence data from 2012. Disease prevalence, Medicaid enrollment, and expenditures were derived from the available literature. The eligible population was based on modified clinical trial inclusion criteria including individuals aged 13 to 45 years with severe disease.

EXPOSURES

The gene therapy was assumed to be administered to 7% of the eligible population annually and was curative (no subsequent disease-related expenditures). The gene therapy price was $1.85 million in the base case, and baseline disease-related expenditures were $42 200 per year.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were total budget impact and budget impact per member per month in years 1 through 5. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate uncertainty of market diffusion, size of eligible population, price of therapy, and cost of routine care.

RESULTS

An estimated 5464 Medicaid enrollees would be eligible for the gene therapy nationally, with 2315 individuals in the 10 Medicaid programs of interest (16 per 100 000 enrollees). The model projected a mean 1-year budget impact of $29.96 million per state Medicaid program in the sample ($1.91 per member per month). A 5-year annuity payment reduced the short-term budget impact.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study suggests that a gene therapy for severe sickle cell disease is likely to produce a considerable budget impact for many Medicaid plans while potentially offering substantial benefit to patients. Payers may need to take steps to ensure affordability and access. Gene therapy for sickle cell disease is likely to provide an early demonstration of the unique financial challenges associated with this emerging drug class.

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.

Market access of gene therapies across Europe, USA, and Canada: challenges, trends, and solutions

This review can inform gene therapy developers on challenges that can be encountered when seeking market access. Moreover, it provides an overview of trends among challenges and potential solutions.

Value and affordability of CAR T-cell therapy in the United States

In the United States the increasing number of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved, innovative, and potentially effective commercial cancer therapies pose a significant financial burden on public and private payers. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells are prototypical of this challenge. In 2017 and 2018, tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah, Novartis) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta, Kite) were approved by the FDA for use after showing groundbreaking results in relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies. In 2020 and 2021, four further submissions to the FDA are expected for CAR T-cell therapies for indolent and aggressive B-cell malignancies and plasma cell myeloma. Yet, with marketed prices of over $350,000 per infusion for the two FDA-approved therapies and similar price tags expected for the coming products, serious concerns are raised over value and affordability. In this review we summarize recent, peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness studies of tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel in the United States; discuss key issues concerning the health plan budget impact of CAR T-cell therapy; and review policy, payment and scientific approaches that may improve the value and affordability of CAR T-cell therapy.

Defining and Managing High-Priced Cures: Healthcare Payers' Opinions

OBJECTIVES

Recent regulatory approvals of potentially curative but high-cost treatments have made these therapies a focus of health policy discussions. Cures present new challenges to healthcare payers because they have high upfront costs but have life-long health benefits. The objectives of this study are to understand how healthcare payers define and manage cures. We investigated payers' views on key features of curative treatments and the affordability and value challenges they present.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews in 2016 with key informants in US payer organizations. Interviewees were directly involved in coverage determination for highly effective and curative therapies.

RESULTS

We contacted 24 individuals and 18 participated. When asked what aspects of cures were important for coverage determination, an equal percentage of respondents (61% each) mentioned clinical and economic factors. In defining a cure, half of respondents included an economic element such as no downstream costs associated with the disease. When asked about challenges, 72% of respondents mentioned uncertainty regarding long-term outcomes and 56% mentioned membership churn and competition.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers expressed a novel definition of a cure-which we call a "healthcare cost cure"-that captures both the clinical and economic consequences of treatment. This definition may be more pertinent in fragmentary financing systems that unevenly distribute cure costs and benefits across payers. Overall findings indicate that decision makers desire evidence to ensure that the long-term real-world consequences of covering cures match the expected benefits. Future policies need to balance upfront acquisition costs with downstream financial benefits.

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.

Assessing the Joint Value of Genomic-Based Diagnostic Tests and Gene Therapies

Gene therapy is an emerging type of treatment that may aim to provide a cure to individuals with a genetic mutation known to be causative of a specific disease. A diagnosis of the causative mutation must precede treatment with a in vivo gene therapy. Both achieving a genomic-based diagnosis and treatment with a gene therapy may result in substantial expenditures for health care systems. Uncertainties around the health care costs, risks, and benefits derived from diagnosis and treatment with a subsequent gene therapy suggests a need for developing an evidence base, underpinned by opportunity cost, to inform if, and how, these health technologies should be introduced into health care systems funded by finite budgets. This article discusses why current methods to evaluate health technologies (decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of a health care system over a lifetime time horizon) are appropriate to quantify the costs and consequences of using genomic-based diagnostic tests and gene therapies in combination, rather than as separate interventions, within clinical practice. Evaluating the economic impact of test-and-treatment strategies will ensure that the opportunity cost of these health technologies is quantified fully for decision-makers who are responsible for allocating limited resources in health care systems.

Long-term Survival and Value of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy for Pediatric Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Leukemia

Importance

Among children and young adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the rate of 5-year disease-free survival is 10% to 20%. Approval of tisagenlecleucel, a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, represents a new and potentially curative treatment option. However, tisagenlecleucel is expensive, with a current list price of $475 000 per one-time administration.

Objective

To estimate the long-term survival and value of tisagenlecleucel for children and young adults with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, a decision analytic model was designed to extrapolate trial evidence to a patient lifetime horizon. The survival evidence for the model was extracted from 3 studies: B2202 (enrolled patients from April 8, 2015, to November 23, 2016), B2205J (enrolled patients from August 14, 2014, to February 1, 2016), and B2101J (enrolled patients from March 15, 2012, to November 30, 2015). Long-term survival and outcomes of patients younger than 25 years with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia that is refractory or in second or later relapse were derived using flexible parametric modeling from the direct extrapolation of event-free survival and overall survival curves. The published Kaplan-Meier curves were digitized from November 1, 2017, to November 30, 2017, using an algorithm to impute patient-level time-to-event data. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed uncertainty in the evidence and model assumptions to further bound the range of cost-effectiveness. Data were analyzed from December 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018.

Interventions

The primary intervention of interest was tisagenlecleucel. The comparator of interest was the chemoimmunotherapeutic agent clofarabine.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Model outcomes included life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental costs per life-year and QALY gained.

Results

Forty percent of patients initiating treatment with tisagenlecleucel are expected to be long-term survivors, or alive and responding to treatment after 5 years. Tisagenlecleucel had a total discounted cost of $667 000, with discounted life-years gained of 10.34 years and 9.28 QALYs gained. The clofarabine comparator had a total discounted cost of approximately $337 000, with discounted life-years gained of 2.43 years and 2.10 QALYs gained. This difference resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $42 000 per life-year gained and approximately $46 000 per QALY gained for tisagenlecleucel vs clofarabine. These results were robust to probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Across scenario analyses that included more conservative assumptions regarding long-term relapse and survival, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from $37 000 to $78 000 per QALY gained.

Conclusions and Relevance

Tisagenlecleucel likely provides gains in survival and seems to be priced in alignment with these benefits. This study suggests that payers and innovators should develop novel payment models that reduce the risk and uncertainty around long-term value and provide safeguards to ensure high-value care.

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.

Financing a Cure for Diabetes in a Multipayer Environment

BACKGROUND

Financing medical breakthroughs or cures is becoming increasingly challenging in the current fiscal environment.

OBJECTIVES

In this paper, we develop the precise conditions needed for a financing mechanism, HealthCoin, to work between a private payer and Medicare, to incentivize the former to invest in breakthrough therapies or cures in the US.

METHODS

We illustrate the valuation of such a currency for a cure of Type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

We show that without a HealthCoin, a private payer does not invest in the cure, a small fraction of the patients live up to age 65, Medicare pays for the full price of the cure at age 65 and incurs net loss in returns over the elderly ages, and the manufacturer only sells cures for those who reach age 65. In contrast, a HealthCoin is feasible in this market, incentivizing the private payer to invest in the cure during the non-elderly ages and leading to Pareto improvements for all three stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Discussions around the applicability of HealthCoin for breakthrough therapies on the horizon, such as gene therapies for blindness and hemophilia B, and the feasibility of instituting such payments through new legislations or demonstration projects could be of great value.

Clinical impact of alcohol-related cirrhosis in the next decade: estimates based on current epidemiological trends in the United States

BACKGROUND

Identifying changes in the epidemiology of liver disease is critical for establishing healthcare priorities and allocating resources to develop therapies. The projected contribution of different etiologies toward development of cirrhosis in the United States was estimated based on current publications on epidemiological data and advances in therapy. Given the heterogeneity of published reports and the different perceptions that are not always reconcilable, a critical overview rather than a formal meta-analysis of the existing data and projections for the next decade was performed.

METHODS

Data from the World Health Organization Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health of 2014, Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from 1999 to 2012, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were inquired to determine future changes in the epidemiology of liver disease.

RESULTS

Alcohol consumption has increased over the past 60 years. In 2010, transplant-related costs for liver recipients were the highest for hepatitis C (~$124 million) followed by alcohol-related cirrhosis (~$86 million). We anticipate a significant reduction in incidence cirrhosis due to causes other than alcohol because of the availability of high efficiency antiviral agents for hepatitis C, universal and effective vaccination for hepatitis B, relative stabilization of the obesity trends in the United States, and novel, potentially effective therapies for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The proportion of alcohol-related liver disease is therefore likely to increase in both the population as a whole and the liver transplant wait list.

CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol-related cirrhosis and alcohol-related liver disorders will be the major cause of liver disease in the coming decades. There is an urgent need to allocate resources aimed toward understanding the pathogenesis of the disease and its complications so that effective therapies can be developed.