This week, a federal appeals court declined to hear a petition to rehear a challenge by the Association for Accessible Medicines to a Maryland drug pricing law.
This week, a federal appeals court declined to hear a petition to rehear a challenge by the Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) to a Maryland drug pricing law, letting the previous ruling stand.
In late April, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh requested that a full federal appeals court rehear the case, saying, “The resolution of this appeal will substantially affect the responses of state governments to a problem with both fiscal and public health dimensions: the rapidly rising cost of prescription drugs.”
The law, passed in 2017 and aimed at combatting increases in the pricing of generic medicines, was deemed unconstitutional in April 2018. The law gave the attorney general the authority to review price information about generic drugs. If the state’s lawyers could show that prices were increasing too steeply, they could seek to order the prices reduced, or issue fines to the drug companies.
AAM filed a suit against the state in a US district court in Maryland last year, alleging that the bill grants the state “unprecedented powers to regulate the national pharmaceutical market, violating the [US] Constitution and posing harm to vulnerable patient communities.”
In reaching the decision to decline rehearing the case, 9 of the 4th Circuit’s judges voted against, 3 judges voted in favor, and 2 judges did not vote.
One of the judges who voted in favor of rehearing the case before the full court, Judge James A. Wynn Jr., wrote that the opinion of the 3-judge panel “materially encroaches” on the state’s ability to pass laws that “protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.”
“At a minimum,” he wrote, the case deserves “the careful deliberation of this entire Court.”
Upon learning that the court had denied rehearing the case, Raquel Coombs, a spokeswoman for the office of the attorney general said, “We are reviewing the decision to determine our next steps.”
According to AAM, Illinois and Louisiana are currently considering legislation modeled after Maryland’s law.
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
BioRationality: Commemorating the 15th Anniversary of the BPCIA
April 8th 2025Affirming that analytical characterization is often sufficient for biosimilar approval, minimizing unnecessary clinical testing, and enhancing FDA-led education to counter stakeholder misconceptions are key recommendations put forth in this opinion piece by Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.