Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39982606›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2025

Innovative Payment Models for Sickle-Cell Disease Gene Therapies in Medicaid: Leveraging Real-World Data and Insights from CMMI's Gene Therapy Access Model.

Antal Zemplenyi, Jim Leonard, Garth C Wright, Michael J DiStefano, Kavita Nair, Kelly E Anderson, R Brett McQueen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Antal ZemplenyiSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. antal.zemplenyi@cuanschutz.edu.
Jim LeonardColorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, Denver, CO, USA.
Garth C WrightSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Michael J DiStefanoSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Kavita NairSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Kelly E AndersonSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
R Brett McQueenSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the financial implications of implementing various payment models, including outcome-based agreements (OBAs), volume-based rebates, and guaranteed rebates, for the newly approved gene therapies, exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel) and lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel), in the treatment of sickle-cell disease (SCD) from the perspective of Colorado Medicaid. The analysis specifically examines the cost of standard of care (SoC) for severe SCD, the impact of different eligibility criteria based on vaso-occlusive events (VOEs), and the potential financial impacts associated with rebate structures.

methodsData from the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing (HCPF) database was used to estimate the annual costs for Medicaid-enrolled patients with severe SCD from 2018 to 2023. Patients were selected based on various eligibility criteria, including the number of VOEs, acute chest syndrome events, and stroke diagnoses. Three-state Markov models (SCD, stable, and dead) were constructed to compare the costs of SoC and gene therapies. The durability of gene therapy effectiveness and the financial impact of OBAs, volume-based rebates, and guaranteed rebates were evaluated over a 6-year contract period, with scenarios reflecting different VOE criteria and treatment durability.

resultsThe average annual SoC cost for severe SCD patients (N = 138) was US$45,941 (SD US$59,653), with higher costs associated with more frequent VOEs. Gene therapies exa-cel and lovo-cel, with one-off list prices of US$2.2 million and US$3.1 million, respectively, exhibited high upfront costs, resulting in a negative cumulative balance averaging - US$2.11 million for exa-cel and - US$3.00 million for lovo-cel per patient over 6 years compared with SoC. Outcome-based rebates could potentially save Medicaid approximately US$260K (uncertainty interval 88K-772K) per patient on average for exa-cel and US$367K (uncertainty interval 122K-1111K) for lovo-cel after they pay the full up-front cost. Volume-based and guaranteed rebates also offered potential savings but varied in impact based on contract duration and effectiveness of gene therapy.

conclusionsThe study highlights critical considerations for Medicaid in negotiating OBAs for SCD gene therapies. Achieving budget neutrality over 6 years is unlikely due to low SoC costs. However, payment models can enhance value-based spending by linking high therapy costs and potential rebates to the health gains these treatments may offer. OBAs offer offsets contingent on therapy effectiveness durability and contract terms (such as length and price), while varying eligibility criteria impact budgets and outcomes. Medicaid real-world data is crucial for navigating complexities in defining eligible populations and structuring OBAs.

Indexed as

Anemia, Sickle CellGenetic TherapyMedicaidReimbursement MechanismsColoradoCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMaleMarkov ChainsModels, EconomicUnited States

Identifiers

PMID39982606
PMCPMC12011968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.