The World Health Organization (WHO) has published a new report on reimbursement policies in Europe that provides a comparative review and analysis of the policies employed by 45 different European countries, and says that promoting the uptake of lower-priced medicines such as generics and biosimilars will “facilitate efficiency gains without disadvantaging patients.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) has published a new report on reimbursement policies in Europe that provides a comparative review and analysis of the policies employed by 45 different European countries, and says that promoting the uptake of lower-priced medicines such as generics and biosimilars can “facilitate efficiency gains without disadvantaging patients.”
In most of the countries studied, WHO found that generic substitution is practiced at the pharmacy level; in 29 countries, substitution of a cheaper generic by a pharmacist is allowed and the practice is mandated. in 12 countries. Only 4 countries—Austria, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom—do not permit a pharmacist to substitute a cheaper generic. Some countries even give financial incentives to pharmacists to make substitutions; in Switzerland, pharmacists receive a fee for doing so.
Read more about pharmacy-level substitution.
In many cases, patients can still receive a more expensive brand-name drug without a doctor’s written justification, though they may pay more in out-of-pocket costs if they refuse a generic.
One measure that has allowed for greater generic uptake, says the report, is prescribing medicines by international nonproprietary name (INN) rather than by brand name, allowing pharmacists to dispense the lowest-cost option with the same active ingredient. INN prescribing is allowed in 22 countries surveyed and is mandatory in another 19.
While these policies have allowed for the wide uptake of generics, the policy landscape for biosimilars is less defined. One commonly used strategy for biosimilars is to set the price of biosimilars at a particular percentage beneath the price of the originator (a strategy the WHO calls a “price link”), and to set maximum prices for originator biologics by external reference pricing, as is practiced in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Malta, Latvia, Serbia, and Slovenia.
Campaigns targeting physicians’ prescribing practices are also increasingly common; in France, for example, physicians are encouraged to prescribe biosimilars for at least 20% of insulin glargine users, and in Norway, physicians must follow a ranking of tendered products and use the lowest-priced drug. Norway’s strategy has resulted in a market share for biosimilar infliximab of more than 95%, the report notes.
Pharmacy-level substitution for biosimilars has proven to be more complex than for generics; in Latvia, for example, pharmacy-level substitution is permitted, and patients have the right to refuse the biosimilar. However, these patients must pay the price difference between the originator and biosimilar. Meanwhile, in Poland, substitution is allowed by law, but the patient must be consulted.
The WHO says that educational policies—including local initiatives among physicians in hospitals or in the outpatient setting—will be of key importance to greater biosimilar uptake in these nations, because acceptance and trust in biosimilars among healthcare providers is a driver of uptake.
“Evidence from the literature and analysis done for this study show the importance of ensuring trust in the quality of generics and the relevance of demand-side measures to promote the uptake of generics and other lower-priced medicines,” said the report’s authors.
Empowering Vulnerable Populations: The Path to Equitable Biologic Therapy Access
December 22nd 2024Elie Bahou, PharmD, senior vice president and system chief pharmacy officer at Providence, discusses strategies to improve equitable access to biologic therapies, including tiered formularies, income-based cost sharing, patient assistance programs, and fostering payer partnerships.
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: Withdrawal of Proposed Terminal Disclaimer Rule Spells Major Setback for Biosimilars
December 10th 2024The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s withdrawal of its proposed terminal disclaimer rule is seen as a setback for biosimilar developers, as it preserves patent prosecution practices that favor originator companies and increases costs for biosimilar competition, according to Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.
Perceptions of Biosimilar Switching Among Veterans With IBD
December 2nd 2024Veterans with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) prioritize shared decision-making, transparency, and individualized care in biosimilar switching, favoring delayed switching for severe cases and greater patient control.
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.