MM Curator summary
The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.
[MM Curator Summary]: Pharma guys are totally on board with the CMS plan to “centralize” the way payment happes for these new drugs, so we should feel good about this not turning into another MDRP-style total spending game/cluster.
Clipped from: https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/gene-therapy-medicaid-payment-model-outcomes/643102/
An article from
The proposed model could help state Medicaid agencies explore outcomes-based payment schemes, but may come too late for a looming test.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is planning a payment model around cell and gene therapies that would centralize use of outcomes-based agreements. Getty / Edited by BioPharma Dive
People with the blood disorder sickle cell are anticipating the arrival of two gene therapies that could dramatically reshape their disease, potentially offering something approaching a cure.
Insurers, too, are preparing for the treatments, which are expected to carry price tags in the seven figures. While five other expensive gene therapies are already available in the U.S., sickle cell is far more prevalent than the inherited diseases they treat, affecting an estimated 100,000 people in the country. Many are covered through Medicaid, the federal insurance plan for people with limited income.
An experimental model proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services last week could help state agencies better afford those medicines, as well as offer a testing ground for payment schemes that could apply to other pricey gene therapies. Yet the timeline for its implementation might mean it comes after the first sickle cell gene therapies reach market.
“Sickle cell is a call to action,” said Michael Sherman, chief medical officer of Point32 Health, the parent company of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Tufts Health Plan.
“Without these kinds of models, we’re going to see access issues,” he added. “The Medicaid state agencies, like other parts of the financing system, were never designed with this sort of upfront shock.”
The gene therapy model is one of three pilot programs CMS will test in the coming years in response to an executive order from President Joe Biden directing the agency to find further ways to lower prescription drug costs. Administration officials described these programs as building on last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, which gave Medicare the authority to negotiate prices for a limited number of drugs.
Under the gene therapy model, state Medicaid agencies could delegate authority to CMS to coordinate multistate frameworks to pay for gene therapies based on how much patients benefit from treatment. In sickle cell, for example, payment could be contingent on whether patients remain free of the pain crises they regularly experience.
These types of payment schemes, typically known as outcomes-based arrangements, are already used in some cases for the currently available gene therapies. But budget limitations and federal price reporting requirements have limited their use within Medicaid, indirectly shaping how they’re designed for private insurers, too.
edcines cleared by the FDA’s main review office since 2015 have been cancer drugs, a tally that reflects the advent of cancer immunotherapy as well as continued progress in matching treatment to genetics.
“There’s a lot of benefit, I think, to having both more of a centralized purchaser or negotiator across Medicaid programs … and having more centralized data collection,” said Stacie Dusetzina, a professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “I think it also gives CMS a little bit of an upper hand at the negotiating table.”
Jeff Marrazzo, the former CEO of gene therapy developer Spark Therapeutics, agrees that a centralized approach in Medicaid could help.
“What I’ve observed is that state Medicaid agencies … generally have experienced more challenges with providing access to cell and gene therapies,” he wrote in an email. “This is due in part to the cost density of cell and gene therapies, but also because these organizations lack the infrastructure required to implement alternative pricing, reimbursement, and access models.”
Marrazzo cited data collection as one example, noting that some state agencies might lack the ability to appropriately track clinical outcomes for patients treated with a gene therapy.
CMS envisions testing several different types of outcomes-based arrangements, including an annuity model where continued payment is based on continued benefit. (To date, gene therapy developers have favored a rebate-based approach, where a certain percentage of their treatment’s cost is returned to the insurer if a specific outcome is not achieved.)
Five years ago, Spark proposed a similar annuity-based idea to help insurers pay for its then newly approved gene therapy Luxturna, for a type of childhood blindness. Spark priced the treatment at $425,000 per eye and sought to offer an installment payment plan, proposing the CMS run a demonstration project around Luxturna.
Keep up with the story. Subscribe to the BioPharma Dive free daily newsletter
Email:
- Select Newsletter: Daily Dive M-F
- Select Newsletter: Commercialization Weekly Every Wednesday
- Select Newsletter: Gene Therapy Weekly Every Thursday
- Select Newsletter: Emerging Biotech Weekly Every Tuesday
- Select user consent: By signing up to receive our newsletter, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You can unsubscribe at anytime.
Its ability to do so was limited by Medicaid rules requiring drugmakers give the program the “best price” they offer on their products. In the event a patient didn’t benefit from treatment, and an insurer therefore didn’t owe the remaining installment payments, Spark would have had to report that fractional cost as its best price.
CMS recently tweaked its policy, allowing drugmakers to report multiple “best prices” in the context of outcomes-based arrangements. “This was an important first step,” Marrazzo wrote. “Along with the [recent] policy change, I do believe CMS providing a more centralized approach could lead to more annuity models being taken up, particularly by Medicaid plans.”
The agency plans to focus the model on a specific disease, and indicated sickle cell as a likely candidate. Behind the advancing sickle cell treatments is a growing pipeline of other gene therapies in development.
“Our concern has been that, for some of these more rare diseases, we haven’t seen the access that we would like to see. Sickle cell is one of them,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure on a call with reporters last week. “One of the reasons we’re so excited about this model is because we think states need some assistance from us to really be effective in the space.”
But CMS doesn’t envision launching the gene therapy model until 2026 at the earliest, years after the two gene therapies now nearing market are expected to be approved. Their developers — Bluebird bio and partners Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics — are currently preparing approval applications that they expect to finish filing with the FDA this quarter.
The latest developments in oncology research
More than one quarter of the medcines cleared by the FDA’s main review office since 2015 have been cancer drugs, a tally that reflects the advent of cancer immunotherapy as well as continued progress in matching treatment to genetics.
Under current timelines, CMS would begin developing the model this year and announce model specifications in 2024 and 2025, with implementation following the year after. The agency would then track metrics like gene therapy spending, use and change in access over time to evaluate its success.
To some, earlier would be better. “Being in a business, I don’t understand why it takes two years to announce model specifications,” Sherman said.
The planned model is also voluntary, so CMS would need to rely on participation from both state Medicaid agencies and from drugmakers. The latter group, CMS argued in its report, would be enticed by the prospect of simpler market access.
That access could come with some tradeoffs, however. “It may be a little bit less attractive because of the inability to command the highest possible price, especially if there is a large population that’s going to be treated and many Medicaid programs are interested in joining together into this kind of one model,” Dusetzina said.