Last week, a federal appeals court in Maryland ruled that a law, passed in 2017 and aimed at combatting increases in the price of generic medicines, is unconstitutional.
Last week, a federal appeals court in Maryland ruled that a law, passed in 2017 and aimed at combatting increases in the price of generic medicines, is unconstitutional.
The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) filed a suit against the state in a US district court in Maryland last year, alleging that the bill grants the state “unprecedented powers to regulate the national pharmaceutical market, violating the [US] Constitution and posing harm to vulnerable patient communities.”
The bill targeted “price gouging” in the sale of off-patent or generic drugs by requiring the Maryland Medical Assistance Program to notify the state’s attorney general of an increase in the prices of such medicines. In addition, it authorized the attorney general to require a drug manufacturer to turn over its records concerning the drug, and permitted a circuit court to compel action or impose penalties of up to $10,000 per infraction on the drug manufacturer.
In a 2 to 1 ruling, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law would regulate trade beyond Maryland’s borders, which violates the so-called dormant commerce clause. Judge Stephanie D. Thacker wrote an opinion that ordered a lower-level federal judge to bar the law from taking effect.
“Maryland cannot, even in an effort to protect its consumers from skyrocketing prescription drug costs, impose its preferences in this manner,” wrote Judge Thacker.
This ruling comes as a disappointment for Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who supported the bill and helped get it passed in the General Assembly in 2017.
“We remain committed to pursuing efforts to eliminate price gouging and to safeguarding Marylanders’ access to prescription drugs,” Frosh told The Baltimore Sun.
The president of the AAM, Chip Davis Jr., JD, was pleased with the outcome, saying in a statement that, “As AAM has always maintained, this law, and any others modeled from it, would harm patients because the law would reduce generic drug competition and choice, thus resulting in an overall increase in drug costs due to increased reliance upon more costly branded medications."
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.
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.