Lantheus Holdings Inc

Current report

Risks Related to Our Portfolio of Commercial Products

Current report

Our ability to continue to grow PYLARIFY as a commercial product is dependent on (A) the ability of PMFs to manufacture PYLARIFY to meet product demand, (B) our ability to obtain and maintain adequate coding, coverage and payment for PYLARIFY, (C) our ability to promote PYLARIFY to customers and to maintain PYLARIFY as the leading PSMA PET imaging agent, including after the potential expiration of TPT Status at the end of 2024 and (D) our ability to clinically and commercially differentiate PYLARIFY from other products.

Current report

To manufacture PYLARIFY, we assembled and qualified a nationwide network of PMFs with radioisotope-producing cyclotrons that make F 18, which has a 110-minute half-life, so PYLARIFY is manufactured and distributed rapidly to end-users. Because each of the PMFs manufacturing these products is deemed by the FDA to be a separate manufacturing site, each has to be separately approved by the FDA. Although PYLARIFY is broadly available across the U.S., we continue to seek qualification for additional PMFs in 2024 and can give no assurance that the FDA will continue to approve PMFs in accordance with our expansion to meet increasing demand. If FDA approval of manufacturing sites is delayed or withdrawn, our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could be adversely affected.

Current report

Obtaining adequate coding, coverage and payment for PYLARIFY is critical, including not only coverage from Medicare, Medicaid and other government payors, as well as private payors, but also appropriate payment levels to adequately cover our customers’ costs of using PYLARIFY in PET/CT imaging procedures. The HCPCS code for PYLARIFY, which enables streamlined billing, went into effect as of January 1, 2022. In addition, effective January 1, 2022, CMS granted TPT Status for PYLARIFY, enabling traditional Medicare to provide an incremental payment for PET/CT scans performed with PYLARIFY in the hospital outpatient setting. TPT Status for PYLARIFY is expected to expire on December 31, 2024. After TPT Status expires, under current Medicare rules, PYLARIFY would not be separately reimbursed in the hospital outpatient setting but rather would be bundled into the facility payment a hospital receives for a PET/CT imaging procedure, and the facility payment may not always adequately cover the total cost of the procedure with PYLARIFY. Other competitive PSMA PET imaging agents will continue to have TPT after December 31, 2024 which could result in PYLARIFY customers choosing to prescribe and use a competitor’s PSMA PET imaging agent instead of PYLARIFY.

Current report

In July 2024, CMS released the CY 2025 Proposed Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System, or OPPS, rule which recognizes the value and need for broad access to diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals by proposing separate payment for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals with per day costs greater than $630. If implemented in the final rule in November, the CMS rule would maintain separate payment for PYLARIFY after the expiration of TPT status for the approximately 20% of patients with traditional Medicare fee-for-service insurance coverage who are treated in the hospital outpatient setting. However, we can give no assurance that CMS will adopt separate payment for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals in its final CY 2025 OPPS rule, that it will follow the methodology set out in the Proposed OPPS rule for calculating such separate payment, that any CMS reimbursement in the hospital outpatient setting that follows the expiration of TPT Status (even if reimbursed as a separate payment) will be adequate to cover the cost of a PYLARIFY PET/CT imaging procedure, that any such rule will remain in effect if adopted or that legislative changes removing such a separate payment for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals would not be adopted.

Current report

In addition, if other government payors or private payors do not provide adequate reimbursement for the use of PYLARIFY, our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could be adversely affected. We plan to continue our advocacy efforts with CMS and private insurers so that PYLARIFY customers will have appropriate and adequate reimbursement following the expiration of TPT Status and we are also supporting trade associations in their efforts to lobby Congress to pass legislation that would allow for separate payment for certain diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals, including PYLARIFY, similar to the way Medicare OPPS currently pays for other drugs, biologics, and therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals instead of under the current TPT structure of a separate payment that is limited to three years, however, we can give no assurances that we will be successful in those efforts or that the availability of TPT Status for other diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals will not impact clinical decision making regarding which product to use, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Current report

The successful growth of PYLARIFY is also dependent on our ability to promote PYLARIFY to customers, to clinically and commercially differentiate PYLARIFY from other products on the market and to maintain PYLARIFY as the leading PSMA PET imaging agent in a competitive environment in which other PSMA PET imaging agents have been approved, for which discounts related to those other agents may be offered to customers and for which TPT Status will extend beyond December 31, 2024. PYLARIFY currently competes with two commercially available Ga-68-based PSMA PET imaging agents from Telix

Current report

Pharmaceuticals Limited and Novartis AG and an F 18 PSMA PET imaging agent from Blue Earth, as well as other non-PSMA PET imaging agents. Continued growth and revenue contribution from PYLARIFY will also depend on our ability to differentiate PYLARIFY in light of the potential loss of TPT Status, including through flexible and dependable access to PYLARIFY nationally, a best in class customer experience and through long-term strategic contracts. To the extent we are not successful in these efforts and we lose market share to existing or future competitors (including during any period of time in which our TPT Status has expired but TPT Status for a later-approved competitive products still exists), such loss of market share could have an adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Current report

Our success in growing PYLARIFY also depends, in part, on our successfully establishing the use of PYLARIFY for approved indications and potentially for additional indications, including for patient selection for PSMA-targeted therapeutics, and for new patient populations, such as patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. For example, we believe the approval of PLUVICTO for the treatment of adult patients with PSMA-positive mCRPC who have already been treated with other anticancer treatments (androgen receptor pathway inhibition and taxane-based chemotherapy) created a new addressable market for the use of PSMA PET imaging in patient selection for PSMA-targeted therapy. However, the prescribing information for PLUVICTO specifies that a PSMA-11 based PSMA PET imaging agent be used for patient selection, and PYLARIFY is not a PSMA-11 based imaging agent. While we note that FDA-approved labels for F 18-based and PSMA-11 based PSMA PET imaging agents have generally been treated as a class of drugs, including by the National Comprehensive Cancer Center in its guidelines and the Society for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging in its appropriate use criteria, we can give no assurances that PLUVICTO prescribing information will be expanded to incorporate F 18-based PSMA PET imaging agents like PYLARIFY, or how current clinical practice may evolve. In addition, we recently enrolled the first patient in a clinical trial to determine whether PYLARIFY can detect the presence or absence of additional prostate cancer lesions in patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, as well as how it may change the patient’s intended management, but cannot predict whether the outcome of this clinical trial will support such a use for PYLARIFY. To the extent we are unsuccessful in establishing the use of PYLARIFY for approved or new indications or in new patient populations, such lack of success could have an adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Current report

We depend on some of our PMF partners to generate sales, accept, produce and deliver orders and report and collect payments on our behalf for PYLARIFY.

Current report

PYLARIFY is sold in the U.S. to hospitals, independent imaging centers and government facilities and sales are generated through an internal PYLARIFY sales team, as well as a sales team at some of our PMF partners. We generally do not use group purchasing arrangements to sell PYLARIFY and require each customer to enter into a contract directly with us or our PMFs. Our ability to continue to successfully grow PYLARIFY depends, in part, on our ability, and the ability of some of our PMF partners on our behalf, to continue to enter into commercially beneficial arrangements directly with the hospitals, independent imaging centers and government facilities that we serve. Any delay or inability to enter into these arrangements, including our ability to negotiate favorable financial terms in these agreements, could have an adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Current report

In addition to depending in part on some of our PMF partners to generate sales, we also depend on some of our PMF partners to accept, produce and deliver orders, invoice customers and to report and collect payments. To the extent our PMF partners are unsuccessful in generating sales, accepting, producing and delivering orders, invoicing customers or in reporting or collecting payments on our behalf, such an event could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Current report

We and our PMF partners also use third-party software to accept orders placed by customers and to record shipping and administrative status of orders. To the extent we are unable to accept orders or access, verify or reconcile ordering, shipping or administrative data, such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Current report

We face significant competition in our business and may not be able to compete effectively.

Current report

The markets for our products are highly competitive and continually evolving. Our principal competitors for our current commercial products and leading clinical development candidates include large, global companies that are more diversified than we are and that have substantial financial, manufacturing, sales and marketing, distribution and other resources:

Current report

•For PYLARIFY, our competitors currently include approved imaging agents from Telix Pharmaceuticals Limited, Novartis AG, and Blue Earth, a subsidiary of Bracco.

Current report

•For DEFINITY, our competitors currently include GE Healthcare and Bracco.

Current report

•For a number of our radiopharmaceutical commercial products, our competitors currently include Curium, GE Healthcare, Bracco and Jubilant Life Sciences, an affiliate of JHS and Jubilant Radiopharma, and potentially BWXT Medical.

Current report

•For PNT2002, our principal competitors may include Novartis AG; Telix Pharmaceuticals Limited; and Curium, each of which has commercialized products or product candidates in advanced clinical stage of development.

Current report

•For PNT2003, our principal competitors may include Novartis AG; ITM Radiopharma; Curium and RayzeBio (acquired by Bristol Myers Squibb), each of which has commercialized products or product candidates in advanced clinical stage of development.

Current report

•For MK-6240 and NAV-4694, our principal competitors may include Eli Lilly and Company, GE Healthcare, Life Molecular Imaging and Aprinoia Therapeutics, each of which has commercialized products or product candidates in advanced clinical stage of development and other companies that may have product candidates in development.

Current report

•For LNTH-1363S, our principal competitors may include Sofie Bioscience; GE Healthcare; and Novartis AG, each of which has product candidates in clinical stage of development.

Current report

•For RM2, our principal competitors may include Novartis AG; Clarity Pharma; and Orano Med, each of which has product candidates in clinical stage of development.

Current report

We cannot anticipate the actions of our current or future competitors in the same or competing modalities, such as significant price reductions on products that are competitive with our own, development of new products that are more cost-effective or have superior performance than our current products or potential future products or the introduction of generic versions after our proprietary products lose their patent protection. In addition, distributors of our products could attempt to shift end-users to competing diagnostic modalities and products, or bundle the sale of a portfolio of products, in either case to the detriment of our specific products. Our current or future products could be rendered obsolete or uneconomical as a result of these activities.

Current report

Further, the radiopharmaceutical industry continues to evolve strategically, with several market participants recently acquired by larger companies that may have more significant resources than ours. In addition, the supply-demand dynamics of the industry are complex because of large market positions of some participants, legacy businesses, government subsidies (in particular, relating to the manufacture of radioisotopes), and group purchasing arrangements and there are often limited sources available for isotopes and raw materials used in the manufacturing of our product and product candidates. We cannot predict what impact new owners and new operators may have on the strategic decision-making of our competitors, customers and suppliers, and such decision-making could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Current report

Risks Related to Reimbursement and Regulation

Current report

Many of our customers are highly dependent on payments from third-party payors, including government sponsored programs, particularly Medicare, in the U.S. and other countries in which we operate, and reductions in third party coverage and reimbursement rates for our products (or services provided with our products) could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Current report

A substantial portion of our revenue depends on the extent to which the costs of our products purchased by our customers (or services provided with our products) are reimbursed by third party payors, including Medicare, Medicaid, other U.S. government sponsored programs, non-U.S. governmental payors and private payors. These third-party payors exercise significant control over patient access and increasingly use their enhanced bargaining power to secure discounted rates and impose other requirements that may reduce demand for our products. Our customers’ ability to obtain adequate reimbursement for products and services from these third-party payors affects the selection of products they purchase and the prices they are willing to pay. If Medicare and other third party payors do not provide adequate reimbursement for the costs of our products (or services provided using our products), deny the coverage of the products (or those services), or reduce current levels of reimbursement, healthcare professionals may not prescribe our products and providers and suppliers may not purchase our products.

Current report

In addition, demand for new products may be limited unless we obtain favorable reimbursement (including coding, coverage and payment) from governmental and private third party payors at the time of the product’s introduction, which will depend, in part, on our ability to demonstrate that a new agent has a positive impact on clinical outcomes. Third-party payors continually review their coverage policies for existing and new products and procedures and can deny coverage for products or procedures that include the use of our products or revise payment policies such that payments do not adequately cover the cost of our products. Even if third-party payors make coverage and reimbursement available, that reimbursement may not be adequate or these payors’ reimbursement policies may have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Current report

For example, effective January 1, 2022, the CMS granted TPT Status in the hospital outpatient setting for PYLARIFY, enabling traditional Medicare to provide an incremental payment for PET/CT scans performed with PYLARIFY in that setting. TPT Status for PYLARIFY is expected to expire December 31, 2024. After TPT Status expires, under current Medicare rules, PYLARIFY would not be separately reimbursed in the hospital outpatient setting but rather would be bundled into the facility payment a hospital receives for a PET/CT imaging procedure, and the facility payment may not always cover the total cost of the procedure. Certain competitor PSMA PET products will continue to have TPT Status after PYLARIFY’s TPT Status expires and this could impact our customer’s prescribing habits. In July 2024, CMS released the CY 2025 Proposed OPPS rule which recognizes the value and need for broad access to diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals by proposing separate payment for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals with per day costs greater than $630. If implemented in the final rule in November, CMS would maintain separate payment for PYLARIFY after the expiration of TPT Status for the approximately 20% of patients with traditional Medicare fee-for-service insurance coverage who are treated in the hospital outpatient setting. We can give no assurance that CMS will adopt separate payment for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals in its final CY 2025 OPPS rule, that it will follow the methodology set out in the Proposed OPPS rule for calculating such separate payment, that any CMS reimbursement in the hospital outpatient setting that follows the expiration of TPT Status (even if reimbursed as a separate payment) will be adequate to cover a PYLARIFY PET/CT imaging procedure, that any such rule will remain in effect if adopted or that legislative changes removing such a separate payment for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals would not be adopted or that the availability of TPT Status for other diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals will not impact clinical decision making regarding which product to use, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Current report

Over the past several years, Medicare has implemented numerous changes to payment policies for imaging procedures in both the hospital setting and non-hospital settings (which include physician offices and freestanding imaging facilities). Some of these changes have had a negative impact on utilization of imaging services. Examples of these changes include:

Current report

•Reducing payments for certain imaging procedures when performed together with other imaging procedures in the same family of procedures on the same patient on the same day in the physician office and free-standing imaging facility setting;

Current report

•Making significant revisions to the methodology for determining the practice expense component of the Medicare payment applicable to the physician office and free-standing imaging facility settings which has resulted in reduced payments for certain services;

Current report

•Revising payment policies and reducing payment amounts for imaging procedures performed in the hospital outpatient settings; and

Current report

•Reducing prospective payment levels for applicable diagnosis-related groups in the hospital inpatient setting.

Current report

In the physician office and free-standing imaging facility setting, services provided using our products are reimbursed under the Medicare physician fee schedule. Payment rates under the Medicare physician fee schedule are regularly subject to updates to effectuate various policy goals of CMS and Congress. For example, in 2022, CMS reduced Medicare fee schedule payments rates in the agency’s final rulemaking, while a larger cut was put forth in the proposed rulemaking earlier that year. For 2023, CMS had finalized a reduction in the Medicare fee schedule payments rates, which was revised by Congress, pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, to a lesser reduction. Additionally, since 2019, fee schedule payments have been adjusted for certain physicians based on their performance under a consolidated measurement system (that measures performance with respect to quality, resource utilization, meaningful use of certified electronic health records technology, and clinical practice improvement activities). From 2019 through payment year 2024, physicians may be eligible for a bonus based on the use of certain alternative payment models designated as “advanced” by CMS. The ongoing and future impact of these changes cannot be determined at this time.

Current report

We believe that Medicare changes to payment policies for imaging procedures applicable to non-hospital settings will continue to result in certain physician practices ceasing to provide these services and a further shifting of where certain medical imaging procedures are performed, from the physician office and free-standing imaging facility settings to the hospital outpatient setting. Changes applicable to Medicare payment in the hospital outpatient setting could also influence the decisions by hospital outpatient physicians to perform procedures that involve our products. Within the hospital outpatient setting, CMS payment policy is such that the use of many of our products are not separately payable by Medicare, although certain new drug products are eligible for separate (incremental) payment for the first three years after approval. Changes to the Medicare hospital outpatient prospective payment system payment rates, including reductions implemented for certain hospital outpatient sites, could influence the decisions by hospital outpatient physicians to perform procedures that involve our products and the risks discussed above with respect to separate payment for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals in the hospital outpatient setting could also impact clinical decision-making.

Current report

We also believe that all of these changes and their resulting pressures may incrementally reduce the overall number of diagnostic medical imaging procedures performed. These changes overall could slow the acceptance and introduction of next-generation imaging equipment into the marketplace, which, in turn, could adversely impact the future market adoption of certain of our imaging agents already in the market or currently in development. We expect that there will continue to be proposals to reduce or limit Medicare and Medicaid payment for diagnostic services, which could impact our current or potential future diagnostic and other types of products and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Current report

We also expect increased regulation and oversight of advanced diagnostic testing in which our products are used, although the timing of such regulation is uncertain after a recent pause by CMS. Under section 218(b) of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act, beginning January 1, 2020, a professional who is ordering advanced diagnostic imaging services (which include MRI, CT, nuclear medicine (including PET) and other advanced diagnostic imaging services that the Secretary of HHS may specify, but not currently including echocardiography) must consult a qualified clinical decision support mechanism, as identified by HHS, to determine whether the ordered service adheres to specified appropriate use criteria (“AUC”) developed or endorsed by CMS-qualified “provider led entities”. Medicare claims for such services must include information indicating whether services ordered would adhere to specified applicable AUC. Denial of claims for failure to include AUC consultation information on the claim form was set to begin on January 1, 2022, but was not implemented by CMS. In the CY 2024 Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule, CMS determined that it was not feasible to fully operationalize the AUC program consistent with the statute within the required time frame. Accordingly, the agency finalized an indefinite pause to the AUC program and the recission of the regulations promulgated thus far to implement the AUC program. While it is unclear when CMS will resume implementation of the AUC program, to the extent that these types of changes have the effect of reducing the aggregate number of diagnostic medical imaging procedures performed in the U.S., our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could be adversely affected.

Current report

Medicare coverage of PET radiopharmaceuticals has been the subject of a large number of National Coverage Determinations (“NCDs”) by CMS since 2000. Specific indications for PET imaging were covered, some through Coverage with Evidence Development. CMS’s longtime policy, however, was that a particular use of PET scans is not covered unless an NCD specifically provided that such use was covered. Effective March 7, 2013, CMS revised its policy through an NCD to allow local Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”) to determine coverage within their respective jurisdictions for PET using radiopharmaceuticals for their FDA-approved labeled indications for oncologic imaging. Effective January 1, 2022, non-coverage in the absence of an NCD has also been removed for non-oncologic indications of PET radiopharmaceuticals, allowing MACs to determine coverage for these indications within their respective jurisdictions. To the extent that CMS or the MACs impose more restrictive coverage, our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could be adversely affected.