5 Misconceptions for MedTech Market Access Strategy

5 Misconceptions for MedTech Market Access Strategy

Market access in MedTech is a complex and rapidly evolving environment, with increasingly intense scrutiny on the costs and benefits of new technologies as the pressure on budgets increases globally. The ability to prepare for and navigate market access strategy is, now more than ever, crucial to the success of a new product, and is frequently assessed by potential partners and acquirers with the same priority as the scientific rationale or potential for favourable regulatory approval.

During the recent MedFit 2022 event in Grenoble, we discussed the most common pitfalls that may affect market access planning and strategy with leading European experts and start-up companies. Here are the top five misconceptions for market access strategy we identified.

“We want to get the approval first, then we will plan for market access”

Engagement with payers early in product development is essential. Companies should define a path to reimbursement, and understand how payers will assess their product, as early as the concept stage to use payers’ feedback to shape the technology into a marketable product and create patient and company value. Leaving engagement with payers until late in development, or after approval, can often lead companies to:

  • overlook crucial requirements
  • mistarget patient populations
  • fail to expectations to gain market access
  • fail to gain critical pricing insights to size the commercial potential

Missing the opportunity to treat payers as your sounding board can cause delays and significant restrictions in access, while timely and iterative payer engagement has the potential to speed up the development process.

“The evidence we are generating for regulators will be sufficient for our market access strategy”

Regulatory decisions are at the top of priority lists for MedTech entrepreneurs both in the US and Europe. Selection of the right pathway and preparation of required submission dossiers are time-consuming and costly and constitute a necessary condition for market access. Late-stage start-ups agree, nonetheless, that it is far from sufficient, and payers themselves corroborate this perspective. In a recent Kx Advisors study, 100% of interviewed executives for major US payers agreed going beyond the evidence required for regulatory approval is key for market access strategy. Payers increasingly require demonstration of patient value not only with differentiated clinical efficacy and safety but through increased compliance and improved patient outcomes and satisfaction. They are also seeking additional sources of data, such as real-world evidence, insurance claims, and adverse event reports. MedTech companies should plan and pre-empt these requirements by carefully designing their studies for a payer-targeted set of endpoints as early as possible and generating evidence with not only regulators but also payers in mind.

“There is an established price for devices like ours”

Existing pricing and reimbursement benchmarks provide valuable insights for market access strategy, as showing cost-effectiveness in comparison to the current standard of care is an important part of any MedTech company’s economic narrative. However, payers’ focus is shifting towards a more holistic view, with greater interest in:

  • improved patient outcomes
  • demonstrated longer-term value
  • ease of use
  • adherence to treatment
  • patient satisfaction

Four out of every five payers recently interviewed by Kx Advisors indicated a preference for increased value over purely lower cost of treatment and were ready to assess pricing based on a complete view of benefit for the patient and healthcare system. The approach MedTech companies take to frame, measure, and present this value becomes a tactical choice, and a key element of a broader commercialisation strategy, that should not be dismissed or made based on a simple competitive analysis.

“We will focus on a market we know and aim for broad market access”

Many MedTech companies decide to first target their home geographic market, building on their familiarity with it, knowledge of the local language and system, and network of contacts. This approach, while easier from a product development perspective, may not allow companies to fully capture their commercial potential. In conversations with Kx Advisors, start-ups with prior product launch experience highlighted the need for fast market deployment and the value of testing the product with first adopters (and getting the product paid for early on) typically outweighs the breadth of market access. The choice of the first markets in which to launch is a strategic decision, and market access becomes one of the key drivers that should be considered in careful prioritisation of the highest potential markets. Entrepreneurs should be aware of both regional (e.g., US vs EU) and intrinsic (e.g., openness to innovative technologies) differences among payers, as well as differing patient population structures and accessibility, and explore avenues that expedite first market access, such as targeting research institutions or venturing into new geographies.

“Payers are not willing to consider innovative reimbursement models”

Getting paid for innovative technologies is notoriously difficult, especially when there is no easy way to make them fit within the established market access pathways for medical devices. The emergence of digital therapies and connected health, as well as the ongoing shift towards at-home therapies accelerated by the COVID pandemic, have only made the landscape more complex. At the same time, the awareness and urgency to address these challenges is on the rise among payers. Approximately 60% of payers recently interviewed by Kx Advisors stated they are exploring value-based reimbursement options and new, alternative pricing models for medical technologies (e.g., subscriptions or device-as-a-service arrangements) will be an increasingly welcome element of future coverage decisions. Building a differentiated market access strategy that accounts for multiple possible business models and reimbursement scenarios and exploring those early with key stakeholders can allow MedTech companies to create and leverage these opportunities.

 

Has your commercialisation strategy ever been impacted by any of these common misconceptions? Or are you currently facing other strategic decisions that will be crucial for your MedTech company’s growth? Feel free to contact Kx Advisors for a follow-up discussion.

Contact Our Team Today

 

Jenna Riffell is a Managing Partner at Kx Advisors, based in London.

Przemek Czerklewicz is a Principal at Kx Advisors, based in London. During the recent MedFit Event 2022 he led an expert panel titled “Innovators’ checklist for market access”.

 

 

Why Your Orphan Drug Needs A Global Market Access Strategy

Why Your Orphan Drug Needs A Global Market Access Strategy

Key Takeaways

  • An effective global market access strategy for rare diseases requires a higher degree of regional customization compared to other launch prep activities
  • While regulatory approval in first-tier US and EU markets can often translate on a global scale, as many local regulatory bodies look to FDA or EMA approval as the gold standard, local market access requirements vary significantly
  • This variation includes, among other factors:
    • Price referencing
    • Health technology assessments
    • Public vs. private payer dynamics
    • Rebates and discounts
    • Reimbursement restrictions (e.g., step-through requirements)
    • Real-world-evidence-based payment models
  • Companies must be ready to develop individual market strategies to address these country-specific challenges

Why You Need A Global Market Access Strategy

Each country poses unique challenges in developing a rare disease market access strategy. While some areas face a scattered patient population, others may face challenges such as immature physician and patient advocacy networks. Additionally, the high cost of certain drugs, like gene therapies, are handled differently by different countries. These nuances in market behaviors and structure underlie the importance of looking across the global landscape when developing a market access strategy. For US-based pharma companies, developing a comprehensive market access plan, rather than simply pivoting off a US-focused market access strategy, will ensure the long-term launch plan meets global needs and is positioned for success.

World Map Showing Why Companies Need Global Strategy

Click to expand

How To Develop A Global Market Strategy

Rare disease companies need to answer complex key questions:

  1. Which markets will be targeted for launch?
  2. How much compromise in pricing is possible to gain access in global markets, particularly given reference pricing?
  3. What evidence is available or will be developed to support global market access?­

The first step in entering a market is to identify which markets offer a path to reimbursement with sufficient pricing potential. The next step is assessing your pricing flexibility, as offering a lower price than in the US or even the EU5 can increase the likelihood of reimbursement in key OUS markets. When making these assessments, identifying patient access schemes, such as named patient supply (NPS), can validate and drive demand. Once an orphan drug gains regulatory approval, companies must be prepared to work with stakeholders, such as patient advocacy groups and KOLs, to demonstrate need for the orphan drug, clinical and cost effectiveness, and drive favorable reimbursement decisions. These stakeholders are pivotal in some markets, ensuring that patients can get treatments at affordable costs throughout the duration of their treatment. As an example, in Brazil, patient advocacy groups work closely with patients to navigate court systems that enable patients to make a legislative case for drug access and coverage before national approval, including for orphan drugs (see more below). 

Rare Disease Brazil Case Study

Click to expand

External Reference Pricing

External reference pricing adds significant complexity to global market access strategy as the application of referencing varies greatly among countries, including:

  • Product Applicability: categories of products for which referencing is applied, including referencing only for drugs in a specific care setting (e.g., inpatient hospital), innovative medicines for which there is no alternative available on the market, or high-cost medicines
  • Basket Composition: both the total number and specific countries selected to include in the reference basket (typically selected based on comparable GDP per capita)
  • Calculation Method: use of either an average price or selection of the lowest price of basket countries
  • Decision Process: whether used as the main systematic criterion (most common) or as supportive information only when setting a drug price
  • Re-evaluation: pricing must be re-evaluated frequently after initial price is set

In Europe, the vast majority of countries use some form of reference pricing. With reference pricing, there is increased pricing interdependence between countries. Given the high prices of orphan drugs, it is critical for rare disease companies to develop a launch sequencing strategy that factors in price referencing. This could include strategically launching first in high-priced countries without reference pricing, then focusing on lower-priced countries.

Real-World Evidence

RWE is gaining momentum globally as real-world data (RWD) sources become available—specifically electronic health records and claims data that provide a basis for evaluating outcomes. New treatment costs remain high for rare diseases, putting pressure on pharma and biotech companies to demonstrate results for premium pricing with payers. Gene therapies are especially costly due to their complexity, making RWE an ideal tool. A prime example is the AveXis-Novartis approach to payer contracting with Zolgensma, a one-time gene therapy treatment that replaces lifetime chronic therapy for patients with spinal muscular atrophy Type 1, and which launched in the US in June 2019. Gene therapies are breaking pricing norms since manufacturers are only able to generate revenue from “one-shot” treatment for each patient, and Zolgensma made waves with a US price point of $2.1M per patient—the most expensive treatment on the market as of this writing. Novartis worked with payers to establish efficacy-based reimbursement and a 5-year installment payment option to spread payment for treatment over time. With these arrangements, risk is lower for payers, who can pay $425K annually for five years and better justify a patient switch from Biogen’s Spinraza, a chronic treatment estimated to cost $4M+ over a 10-year period. Zolgensma won coverage for 90% of US commercial patients within its first full quarter on the market, with all payers taking advantage of value-based contracting; however, initial uptake of the installment-based payment system was limited.  

Similarly, in May of this year, Zolgensma received conditional approval in Europe with the “Day One” access program, which ensures the cost of patients treated before national pricing and reimbursement agreements are in place aligns with the value-based prices negotiated following clinical and economic assessments. Working within the existing pricing and local reimbursement frameworks, the “Day One” access program for EU governments and reimbursement agencies allows the company to tackle entry into markets faster and with more flexibility. This system sets up a win for each stakeholder: the patient, the health and reimbursement bodies, and AveXis-Novartis. With the Temporary Authorization for Use (ATU) program, it became immediately accessible in France and should be available in Germany shortly. 

Coverage for therapies like Zolgensma remains dependent on demonstrating values, so companies must leverage proof of value when looking to capture new patient markets. RWE and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide stakeholders with concrete data to inform formulary addition and clinical trial outcome endpoints.

Case Study USA

Click to expand

Moving Forward

An effective global market access strategy for orphan drugs must be adaptable to different regions and their unique challenges to be effective. As companies work through the key questions outlined above to create a successful global market access strategy, tools like RWE and external reference pricing can support tackling a large range of location-specific issues.

How Kx Can Help

Our experts evaluate business opportunities, deliver top-notch expertise, and make data-driven recommendations to our healthcare clients. Kx Advisors can guide your organization through the process of developing and implementing a global market access strategy for your rare disease drug.

Contact Our Team Today

Sources

https://www.pacificbridgemedical.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Orphan-Drugs-in-Asia-2017.pdf

http://info.evaluategroup.com/rs/evaluatepharmaltd/images/2014OD.pdf

https://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/article/62846/orphan-drugs-regulation-eu/

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/committee/stamp/2015-05_stamp2/5.pdf

https://www.eurordis.org/training-health-technology-assessment

https://www.rtihs.org/sites/default/files/Rare%20Disease%20Webinar%20Slides_Final%20Feb%2027.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802694/

https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/avexis-announces-innovative-zolgensma-gene-therapy-access-programs-for-us-payers-and-families/

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/novartis-zolgensma-beats-data-woe-payer-resistance-strong-and-high-interest-ceo

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/05/19/2035354/0/en/AveXis-receives-EC-approval-and-activates-Day-One-access-program-for-Zolgensma-the-only-gene-therapy-for-spinal-muscular-atrophy-SMA.html

https://mapbiopharma.com/home/2020/04/landmark-pay-for-performance-contract-agreed-in-germany/