This month, Maryland’s Attorney General Brian Frosh petitioned the Supreme Court to uphold the “first-in-the-nation” law against drug price-gouging.
This month, Maryland’s Attorney General Brian Frosh petitioned the Supreme Court to uphold the “first-in-the-nation” law against drug price-gouging.The law gives 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.
The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) filed a suit against the state in a US district court in Maryland last year, alleging 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 April 2018, a federal appeals court in Maryland ruled that the law, which was passed in 2017, was unconstitutional. In explaining her decision to bar the law from taking effect, Judge Stephanie D. Thacker wrote an opinion stating that “Maryland cannot, even in an effort to protect its consumers from skyrocketing prescription drug costs, impose its preferences in this manner.”
After the decision in late April, Frosh requested that a full federal appeals court rehear the case, explaining that “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.”
In July, a federal appeals court declined to hear a petition to rehear the case, letting the previous ruling stand.
In reaching the decision to decline to rehear the case, 9 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 “At a minimum, [the case deserves] the careful deliberation of this entire Court.”
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.
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.
CHMP Pushes 3 Biosimilars Forward, Spelling Hope for Ophthalmology, Supportive Care Markets
February 6th 2025The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) recommended 3 biosimilars and new indications for reference biologics, moving them closer to final European approval and expanding patient access.
The Biosimilar Void: 90% of Biologics Coming Off Patent Will Lack Biosimilars
February 5th 2025Of the 118 biologics losing exclusivity over the next decade, only 10% have biosimilars in development, meaning a vast majority of biologics have no pipeline, which limits savings potential for the health care system.