This month, Maryland’s Attorney General Brian Frosh petitioned the Supreme Court to uphold the “first-in-the-nation” law against drug price-gouging.
This month, Maryland’s Attorney General Brian Frosh petitioned the Supreme Court to uphold the “first-in-the-nation” law against drug price-gouging.The law gives the attorney general the authority to review price information about generic drugs. If the state’s lawyers could show that prices were increasing too steeply, they could seek to order the prices reduced, or issue fines to the drug companies.
The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) filed a suit against the state in a US district court in Maryland last year, alleging the bill grants the state “unprecedented powers to regulate the national pharmaceutical market, violating the [US] Constitution and posing harm to vulnerable patient communities.”
In April 2018, a federal appeals court in Maryland ruled that the law, which was passed in 2017, was unconstitutional. In explaining her decision to bar the law from taking effect, Judge Stephanie D. Thacker wrote an opinion stating that “Maryland cannot, even in an effort to protect its consumers from skyrocketing prescription drug costs, impose its preferences in this manner.”
After the decision in late April, Frosh requested that a full federal appeals court rehear the case, explaining that “The resolution of this appeal will substantially affect the responses of state governments to a problem with both fiscal and public health dimensions: the rapidly rising cost of prescription drugs.”
In July, a federal appeals court declined to hear a petition to rehear the case, letting the previous ruling stand.
In reaching the decision to decline to rehear the case, 9 judges voted against, 3 judges voted in favor, and 2 judges did not vote. One of the judges who voted in favor of rehearing the case before the full court, Judge James A. Wynn Jr., wrote that “At a minimum, [the case deserves] the careful deliberation of this entire Court.”
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.
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.
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.