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.
13 Strategies to Avoid the Nocebo Effect During Biosimilar Switching
December 18th 2024A systematic review identified 13 strategies, including patient and provider education, empathetic communication, and shared decision-making, to mitigate the nocebo effect in biosimilar switching, emphasizing the need for a multifaceted approach to improve patient perceptions and therapeutic outcomes.
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.
Commercial Payer Coverage of Biosimilars: Market Share, Pricing, and Policy Shifts
December 4th 2024Researchers observe significant shifts in payer preferences for originator vs biosimilar products from 2017 to 2022, revealing growing payer interest in multiple product options, alongside the increasing market share of biosimilars, which contributed to notable reductions in both average sales prices and wholesale acquisition costs.
The Rebate War: How Originator Companies Are Fighting Back Against Biosimilars
November 25th 2024Few biologics in the US have multiple biosimilar competitors, but originator biologics respond quickly to competition by increasing rebates and lowering net prices, despite short approval-to-launch timelines for biosimilars.
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.