The state’s Department of Health and Human Services this week sent letters to firms that did not provide required information about production costs, marketing and advertising costs, patient assistance programs, wholesale acquisition costs, and historical increases, among other information.
Last week, Nevada told 21 diabetes drug manufacturers the state wants $17.4 million in penalties for noncompliance with a new price transparency law.
According to press reports, the state’s Department of Health and Human Services this week sent letters to firms that did not provide required information about production costs, marketing and advertising costs, patient assistance programs, wholesale acquisition costs, and historical increases, among other information.
Thirteen companies were assessed $910,000, followed by Daiichi Sankyo, which was assessed a $735,000, which was the smallest penalty.
According to a state drug transparency report released earlier this year, about 12.6% of adults in Nevada have diabetes, and 1 in 4 don’t know that they have the disease. Direct and indirect diabetes related expenses cost $2.7 billion in the state.
The transparency law requires that manufacturers divulge justifications for price increases; the most cited reason research and development investments, followed by claims that the drug has more competitive value, changes in marketplace dynamics, rebates provided to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), insurers, and others, and manufacturing investments.
The Nevada law requires that PBM managers report rebates in aggregate (but not for individual drugs).
A recent study said these laws are largely ineffective at revealing true transaction prices for drugs, though policy makers have hailed these legislative solutions as steps toward bringing down the high cost of drugs for US patients. The laws do not require the release of real price information, including discounts and rebates, by all players in the supply chain.
The Nevada Independent, a nonprofit news organization, reported that the companies have 30 days to either pay the fines in full or 10 days to request an informal dispute resolution meeting with the state. If the companies don’t respond at all, the department will refer the cases to the attorney general’s office to seek a court order to collect the penalty.
Biosimilar Cases to Watch: Prolia/Xgeva and Denosumab Competitors
March 11th 2025The denosumab biosimilar market is poised for disruption with 3 FDA-approved biosimilars, at least 5 awaiting approval, and launches anticipated to start in May 2025, while ongoing patent litigation continues to shape the competitive landscape.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
From Amjevita to Zarxio: A Decade of US Biosimilar Approvals
March 6th 2025Since the FDA’s groundbreaking approval of Zarxio in 2015, the US biosimilars market has surged to 67 approvals across 18 originators—though the journey has been anything but smooth, with adoption facing hurdles along the way.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
Biosimilar Approvals Streamlined With Advanced Statistics Amidst Differing Regulatory Requirements
February 25th 2025The FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) mandate high similarity between biosimilars and reference products, but their regulatory processes differ, especially with multiple reference products.