Scott Gottlieb, MD, former commissioner of the FDA, discusses which policy changes would have the greatest impact on the US biosimilars market.
Transcript:
Well, I think a lot of the challenges with biosimilars weren’t necessarily related to the regulatory process. Certainly, trying to make it lower cost to enter the market, make it more efficient to get claims of interchangeability, or to extrapolate across different indications for biosimilars that were in biosimilar launches, they can launch with the full suite of indication that the reference product had. That’s all going to help facilitate I think a more competitive market, but a lot of the challenges were on the reimbursement side—on the coverage side—where it was hard for a biosimilar to enter the market.
I think one of the challenges was physician adoption—there was reluctance amongst physicians to adopt biosimilars. I don’t think that was unexpected. If you look back at the early days of Hatch-Waxman, there was a lot of physician reluctance to adopt small molecule generic drugs because of a perception that they weren’t the same as the branded drug. Eventually, physicians got comfortable with generic drugs and understood that they were just as safe and effective as the branded counterpart. I think we’re seeing the same evolution with biosimilars; it’s actually happening more quickly with biosimilars.
Another impediment is the rebates that exist on the incumbent biologic in some cases create an impediment to the biosimilar launching into the market. One thing we might look at is whether or not there should be rebates allowed on branded biologics once a biosimilar enters the market. So, we talked about doing away with the safe harbor for rebates in the context of all drugs in Medicare Part D. There was a rulemaking process to look at whether or not Medicare should basically eliminate the safe harbor from manufacturers to negotiate these rebate agreements with [pharmacy benefit managers, PBMs].
That ultimately didn’t go forward, as we saw in the press recently, but one place where we might reconsider reintroducing that concept, in doing away with the safe harbor for rebating, is in settings of the biologics when a biosimilar enters the market, because you could make an argument that in the setting of a market where there is an incumbent biologic, and there’s a new biosimilar entrant, the existence of a rebate, or the ability to rebate off of the incumbent biologic, truly is anticompetitive in that setting. So, we might look at narrowly tailoring that policy just for that specific setting.
Can Global Policies to Boost Biosimilar Adoption Work in the US?
November 17th 2024On this special episode of Not So Different honoring Global Biosimilars Week, Craig Burton, executive director of the Biosimilars Council, explores how global policies—from incentives to health equity strategies—could boost biosimilar adoption in the US.
Biosimilars in America: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Impact
July 21st 2024Join us as we explore the complexities of the US biosimilars market, discussing legislative influences, payer and provider adoption factors, and strategies to overcome industry challenges with expert insights from Kyle Noonan, PharmD, MS, value & access strategy manager at Cencora.
Q&A: Dr Kimberly Maxfield Explains How BsUFA III Will Advance the US Biosimilar Industry
December 20th 2023At AMCP Nexus, Kimberly Maxfield, PhD, pharmacologist at the FDA, delved into how the third reauthorization of the Biosimilar User Fee Act (BsUFA III) will shape the American biosimilar market and improve development efficiency over the next few years.
Breaking Barriers in Osteoporosis Care: New Denosumab Biosimilars Wyost, Jubbonti Approved
June 16th 2024In this episode, The Center for Biosimilars® delves into the FDA approval of the first denosumab biosimilars, Wyost and Jubbonti (denosumab-bbdz), and discuss their potential to revolutionize osteoporosis treatment with expert insights from 2 rheumatologists.