Chad Landmon, JD, chair of Intellectual Property and FDA Practice at Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider, provides a legal perspective on the implications of President Biden’s effort to improve the competitiveness of drug markets.
On July 9, 2021, President Biden signed a sweeping executive order intended to promote a more vibrant and competitive economy. The mandate contained provisions that affect the biosimilars market.
For insight into the significance of these initiatives, The Center for Biosimilars® spoke with Chad Landmon, JD, chair of the Intellectual Property and FDA Practice groups at Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider, a law firm specializing in antitrust and intellectual property issues based in New York.
The executive order calls for the importation of drugs from Canada to help improve supply and lower prices in the United States. It also directs HHS to support the use of generic and biosimilar agents, and it increases pressure on the Federal Trade Commission to oppose “pay-for-delay” agreements that pharmaceutical companies sometimes employ to keep rival products off the market.
Among its provisions, the executive order also calls upon HHS to produce a comprehensive plan within 45 days to address high prescription drug prices and “price gouging.”
Landmon put these initiatives into context with background information and insight into the likely pharmaceutical industry impact and response.
He discusses the complications inherent in tackling pay-for-delay settlements as these, while not ideal, do carry the benefit of offering parties to a pharmaceutical dispute a way to set a timeline for bringing products to market, thereby avoiding costly litigation that could prevent lower-cost drugs from entering the market for substantially longer periods of time.
Landmon mentions California’s landmark anti–pay-for-delay legislation, signed into law in 2019, that prevents “anything of value” from being exchanged by pharmaceutical companies in exchange for a settlement. This law survived its first legal challenge last year when a federal judge denied a motion for relief by the Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM), a group representing generics and biosimilars manufacturers.
The AAM in a statement issued July 9, 2021, said it is willing to work with the Biden administration to accelerate adoption of lower-cost generics and biosimilars but wants to avoid extension of restrictions on drug dispute settlements such as California has imposed. “The White House should ensure that any new regulations do not restrict the ability to settle patent litigation with brand companies in a procompetitive manner,” the AAM said.
Drug imports from Canada were authorized during the Trump administration. For a recent Center for Biosimilars® article outlining the pros and cons of this initiative, click here.
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 Development Roundup for October 2024—Podcast Edition
November 3rd 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the GRx+Biosims conference, which included discussions on data transparency, artificial intelligence (AI), and collaboration to enhance the global supply chain for biosimilars and generic drugs, as well as the evolving requirements for biosimilar devices.
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.
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.
Pertuzumab Biosimilar Shows Promise in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Treatment
December 9th 2024The proposed pertuzumab biosimilar QL1209 demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety to reference pertuzumab (Perjeta) in neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive, ER/PR-negative early or locally advanced breast cancer, offering a cost-effective alternative with comparable clinical outcomes.
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.