Purva Rawal, PhD, senior advisor and chief strategy officer, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, spoke during the Association for Accessible Medicines' Access! annual meeting, which gathered in Orlando, Florida, February 15-16.
An official with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) told leaders from the generic and biosimilars industries that CMS is committed to policies that will expand the use of biosimilars, given the need to make drugs more affordable and “the potentially important role biosimilar adoption may have for the success of our value-based payment models.”
Purva Rawal, PhD, senior advisor and chief strategy officer for CMMI, spoke during the Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) Access! annual meeting, which gathered in Orlando, Florida, February 15-16.
Most of Rawal’s talk focused on the “strategy refesh,” a process that CMMI has undertaken to revamp how it implements alternative payment models; this is CMMI’s core mission under the Affordable Care Act. In an essay in Health Affairs and in a white paper published last fall, CMS spelled out plans to add health equity to all models, and—of concern to the AAM audience—to renew its focus on limiting spending in Medicare and Medicaid.
“Importantly, we also want to increase the momentum and the movement toward value-based care and reignite that sense of inevitability that many of us felt 10 years ago,” Rawal said.
However, CMMI has been criticized for allowing the Oncology Care Model (OCM) to run out this summer with no successor in its place, despite the investment made by practices to transition to value-based care. Rawal highlighted the OCM’s success in promoting biosimilar use while noting the model is set to expire.
“We're hearing about success in terms of participants prescribing lower-cost biosimilars, achieving savings in total cost of care, and maintaining quality outcomes, which is critical,” Rawal said. “So, we're hoping that these anecdotal reports of success show through in our future evaluation results.”
She explained how the payment policy that aimed to give specialty practices, including oncologists, incentives to prescribe biosimilars isn’t working as hoped. Under Medicare Part B, a practice would normally be paid less to prescribe a lower-priced alternative under the average sales price + 6% formula, but the law was written to prevent this revenue drop.
“The statutory payment policy theoretically incentivizes biosimilar use by making the drug add-on amount comparable across the reference biological and each biosimilar product. But this payment approach doesn't ensure that the prescribers’ margin on a biosimilar is comparable to the margin they may be able to obtain on the reference biological,” Rawal said. “So, we're starting to see some market competition, overall lowering of drug prices for biologicals, where biosimilars have been introduced. But the uptake of biosimilars has been slower than we anticipated, as many of you are aware, even with the add-on being based on the reference biologic.”
Rawal said the barriers that remain to biosimilar uptake are “concerning,” and CMMI seeks to remove them; some may be related to provider education, she said.
Acceptance among providers is complex, however. A recent survey by Cardinal Health found that acceptance of biosimilars is much higher among oncologists than among rheumatologists. And oncologists have said that even when they prefer biosimilars, resistance may come from pharmacy benefit managers who demand that the practice use a higher-priced reference product.
Prioritizing affordability will work in biosimilars’ favor, she said, while crediting the AAM for providing ideas to promote biosimilar and generic use. Value-based care, she said, proved its worth during the pandemic and will do so going forward.
“We've seen early evidence that providers in population-based payments and alternative payment models were more resilient,” Rawal said. “That resilience allowed them to continue to provide access to patients, such as through telehealth.
“So, we have new evidence on the value of value-based payment, and value-based care from the pandemic, and we want to use this experience to accelerate our work to drive accountable care.”
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.
Health Canada Approves First Omalizumab Biosimilar
December 16th 2024Health Canada has approved Omlyclo, the first omalizumab biosimilar in Canada, for the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria, allergic asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, based on a phase 3 study confirming its bioequivalence to the reference product.
Eye on Pharma: Golimumab Biosimilar Update; Korea Approves Denosumab; Xbrane, Intas Collaboration
December 10th 2024Alvotech and Advanz Pharma have submitted a European marketing application for their golimumab biosimilar to treat inflammatory diseases, while Celltrion secured Korean approval for denosumab biosimilars, and Intas Pharmaceuticals partnered with Xbrane Biopharma on a nivolumab biosimilar.
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.