Will biosimilars improve public health? Policy makers should look to that question as they sort through possible solutions, the authors say.
There are several possible solutions to encouraging the use of biosimilars in the United States, according to a newly published article in the latest issue of the AMA Journal of Ethics.
While the authors hold out hope that some combination of new policies and regulatory changes will spur increased access and lower prices, interestingly, they also propose that if all else fails, perhaps it would then be time to regulate the prices of originator biologics after a certain period of exclusivity.
A similar argument has been made this year in a series of posts in Health Affairs, where some have called for regulating biosimilars in order to lower prices and increase access.
However, the political will to implement price regulation is scarce, notes the latest discussion on the topic, and so “encouraging increased competition in the biologics market with biosimilars remains the most promising mechanism to increase access to much-needed drugs,” the authors write.
Some of their recommendations, short of price regulation, include:
Acknowledging that some patients and physicians still have concerns about biosimilars, questioning safety and effectiveness, the authors say that postmarketing studies of biosimilars will continue to be necessary to evaluate these concerns. They note, however, that, so far, studies have found no meaningful safety and efficacy differences between a biosimilar and its respective originator biologic.
Will biosimilars improve public health? Policy makers should look to that question as they sort through possible solutions, the authors say. The high cost of biologics imposes a barrier to patient access and adherence; lower prices resulting from competition will reduce overall healthcare costs and could improve medication adherence, resulting in better health outcomes.
Reference
Zhai MZ, Sarpatwari A, Kesselheim AS. Why are biosimilars not living up to their promise in the US? AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(8):E668-678. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2019.668.
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.