Article

Payer Interest in Outcomes-Based Contracts Grows

Insurers have taken interest in outcomes-based contracts for specialty drugs and non-specialty drugs.

A recent study found that many health insurers have taken interest in outcomes-based contracts with pharmaceutical companies, especially for oncology and hepatitis C virus (HCV) drugs.

According to a survey conducted by Avalere Health in 2015, 65% of insurers had high or very high interest in these outcomes-based contracts for HCV drugs, and 53% had high or very high interest in these contracts for oncology drugs.

Specialty drugs tend to be more popular targets for outcomes-based contracts since they account for the majority of prescription drug spending and comprise a majority of the drug pipeline. However, a more recent study by Avalere found that insurers are starting to become more interested in these contracts for other non-specialty drugs as well.

Non-specialty drugs, such as PCSK9 inhibitors, show potential for outcomes-based contracts since a broader population may need access to these drugs, resulting in higher costs for insurers. Payers believe contracts for broadly used non-specialty drugs could decrease spending, according to Avalere.

“The growth of outcomes-based contracts between plans and manufacturers is a clear response to the health system’s call for cost-containment without restricting patients’ access to new, breakthrough therapies,” said Dan Mendelson, president at Avalere. “Plans, manufacturers and providers are all looking for ways to reduce cost without comprising patient outcomes and access—these types of contracts are one possible solution.”

The study noted that not only do insurers benefit from these contracts, but so do manufacturers and providers. These contracts can increase cooperation between various important stakeholders, resulting in better predictability for coverage and reimbursement.

Outcomes-based contracts also have the potential to create a better understanding for which patients will benefit the most from which drugs. Hurdles are still faced between both companies about how the medication’s success will be analyzed, but new platforms and solutions are being created to fix this problem, according to the study.

“Despite the difficulties that plans and drug manufacturers may face when entering into a risk-based contracts, there are opportunities for all stakeholders involved to benefit in the end,” concluded Kathy Hughes, vice president at Avalere. “Coming to agreement on all of aspects of a contract—design, management, payment, implementation, and data collection—is a difficult but necessary process that requires the full commitment of both parties.”

Related Videos
Anthony Perissinotti, PharmD, BCOP, discusses unmet needs and trends in managing chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), with an emphasis on the pivotal role pharmacists play in supporting medication adherence and treatment decisions.
Image Credit: © alenamozhjer - stock.adobe.com
pharmacogenetics testing, adverse drug events, personalized medicine, FDA collaboration, USP partnership, health equity, clinical decision support, laboratory challenges, study design, education, precision medicine, stakeholder perspectives, public comment, Texas Medical Center, DNA double helix
pharmacogenetics challenges, inter-organizational collaboration, dpyd genotype, NCCN guidelines, meta census platform, evidence submission, consensus statements, clinical implementation, pharmacotherapy improvement, collaborative research, pharmacist role, pharmacokinetics focus, clinical topics, genotype-guided therapy, critical thought
Image Credit: © Andrey Popov - stock.adobe.com
Image Credit: © peopleimages.com - stock.adobe.com
TRUST-I and TRUST-II Trials Show Promising Results for Taletrectinib in ROS1+ NSCLC
Image Credit: © Krakenimages.com - stock.adobe.com