Policy

“We wish biosimilar competition would efficiently lower biologics prices to the socially optimal level of marginal economic cost,” wrote Bach and coauthors. “But, in this case, the ideological preference for competition needs to be put aside for a more effective, efficient, and economically justified approach of regulating biologics as natural monopolies.”

A study published this week in PLoS Medicine suggests that brand-to-brand competition is not likely to reduce drugs’ list prices.

The chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet in the House of Representatives, proposed a bipartisan bill to amend the patent dance in the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) by capping the number of some types of patents that may be claimed by the maker of the reference product.

The first pathway for importation outlined in the plan would rely on a notice of proposed rulemaking to authorize importation of drugs from Canada. The second pathway would allow manufacturers to import versions of FDA-approved drugs that are sold in other countries.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court heard arguments in Texas v Azar. If the judge sides with the Republican point of view that the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional and invalidates the landmark law, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), the pathway for biosimilars included in the ACA, would have to start over from scratch. That shouldn’t be a problem, according to 2 conservative healthcare and pharmaceutical observers interviewed by The Center for Biosimilars®.

Genentech had asked the court for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against Amgen in a Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) litigation related to patents covering Herceptin. The United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied Genentech’s motion, and the court has now made public a redacted version of the memorandum opinion in the matter.

The Senate Finance Committee has released its long-awaited chairman’s mark of the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2019. The bill, aimed at lowering the cost of drugs for American patients, contains a number of provisions that impact biosimilars.

This month, the president and chief executive officer of Green Shield Canada, the fourth-largest private payer in Canada, hailed British Columbia’s strategy as “forward-thinking” and “essential to maximizing opportunities in healthcare.”

Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has reintroduced a bill he thinks will speed US approval of drugs, biologics, or devices approved in other countries.

When the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions released bipartisan legislation aimed at lowering the cost of healthcare in the United States in May, biosimilar stakeholders had some cause for optimism. However, one provision of the bill that has garnered significantly less attention from the broader healthcare community has raised concerns among many biologics stakeholders.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), enacting the bill would increase direct spending by about $18.7 billion and increase direct revenues by $26.2 billion, resulting in a net decrease in the deficit of $7.6 billion by 2029.

Medicare Part D enrollees may actually pay more for some generic drugs than they would for their brand-name counterparts because of the Part D benefit, according to findings of a new study appearing in Health Affairs.

More than 100 House Democrats this week wrote to US Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer to ask him to drop language from the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade agreement that would give 10 years of marketing exclusivity for biologic drugs.

The Center for Biosimilars® recaps the top stories for the week of July 8, 2019.

The Trump administration has withdrawn its proposal to block rebates and discounts given by drug makers to pharmacy benefit managers, Part D plans, and Medicaid managed care organizations.

The Center for Biosimilars® had a conversation with Alexandra D. Valenti, JD, of Goodwin’s Intellectual Property Litigation group, to help understand the recent discussions in the Senate Judiciary Committee about ongoing attempts at patent reform.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has vacated the Trump administration’s rule requiring the disclosure of wholesale acquisition costs for drugs in direct-to-consumer television advertising. The rule had been slated to take effect today, July 9.

Industry group the Biosimilars Forum recently put forth 3 policy proposals that it says could save the US healthcare system billions of dollars. This week on the podcast, we’ve invited the forum to tell us more about its proposals and other policy issues related to biosimilars.

The Biosimilars Council, a part of the Association for Accessible Medicines, has issued a new white paper in which it condemns abuses of the patent system that delay biosimilar competition. It also argues that legislative proposals to regulate settlements would “merely benefit companies investing in the creation of patent thickets.”

A panel at the ACI 10th Summit on Biosimilars focused on the recent FDA decision around the naming of biosimilar products and what that means for the industry, as well as related issues.

Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Merck, together with the Association of National Advertisers, have filed a lawsuit against HHS and CMS over the Trump administration’s rule requiring disclosure of list prices for drugs in direct-to-consumer television advertisements.

In this case, Pfizer hoped to launch its biosimilar bevacizumab in the UK market after the basic patent on the reference product, Genentech and Roche’s Avastin, expires in June 2020. However, the biosimilar maker has been hindered by what it has termed a patent thicket related to secondary patents.

The first set of presentations on day 2 of the ACI 10th Summit on Biosimilars on Tuesday in New York City reviewed the economics of biosimilar drugs and considerations for access, pricing, and reimbursement.

Under which situations might the International Trade Commission (ITC) be the right choice for biosimilar patent disputes instead of federal district court? A panel discussed these questions at the ACI 10th Summit on Biosimilars on Monday in New York City.

While pay-for-delay issues have been big news on Capitol Hill recently, some experts have questions about whether these kinds of settlements are really at the heart of delayed biosimilar competition, and they offer alternative ways to think about—and to fix—the problem. This week on the podcast, we’re speaking with 2 such experts, Imron Aly, JD, and Joel Wallace, JD. Both are partners at Schiff Hardin LLP and have extensive experience with Hatch-Waxman and biosimilars intellectual property issues.

The Center for Biosimilars® recaps the top stories for the week of June 17, 2019.

Legislators on Capitol Hill are moving forward this month with bills that address patent issues pertaining to biosimilars.

According to the authors of a new study, while biologics are often believed to be more time consuming to develop than small-molecule drugs, development times are, in fact, similar between these 2 drug types.

A worldwide survey conducted by an international type 1 diabetes (T1D) advocacy non-profit found that rationing of insulin and related supplies was the greatest in the Unites States.

A Canadian advisory council is recommending the use of biosimilars in a final report that lays out 60 recommendations for how the country can create a C$15.3 billion universal, single-payer, public system for pharmaceutical coverage.