Under the Biden administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has reversed course and now backs the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has changed its position on the Supreme Court case involving the severability of the individual mandate from the Affordable Care Act (ACA), now arguing that the ACA should not be struck down if the mandate is deemed unconstitutional.
Under the Trump administration, the DOJ argued the mandate was not severable, but under President Joseph Biden the federal argument is now different. Oral statements were held before the Supreme Court in November 2020 whether the entire ACA should be invalidated. A decision is expected in June.
The Trump administration had sided with Republican-governed states led by Texas that had argued against severability and for the invalidation of the ACA.
The significance for biosimilar markets is that if the ACA is allowed to stand, the biosimilar regulatory approval pathway, or Biologics Price Innovation and Competition Act, which is part of the ACA, will remain also.
The DOJ position was outlined in a letter filed by Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. “The purpose of this letter is to notify the court that the United States no longer adheres to the conclusions in the previously filed brief of the federal respondents,” Kneedler wrote. “After reconsideration of the issue, it is now the position of the United States that the amended Section 5000A [individual mandate] is constitutional.”
The individual mandate was amended so that individuals do not have to pay a penalty if they do not have coverage for themselves.
Kneedler went on to say that if the Supreme Court decides that the altered section is unconstitutional, it is the DOJ position “that provision is severable from the remainder of the ACA.”
The Biden administration has promised to strengthen Obamacare by improving access to coverage and medical care for residents of the United States.
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.