- Bone Health
- Immunology
- Hematology
- Respiratory
- Dermatology
- Diabetes
- Gastroenterology
- Neurology
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Rare Disease
- Rheumatology
Study Highlights Role of Health Plan Type in Biosimilar Adoption
A study examining biosimilar uptake patterns within different health insurance plans found that low-flexibility plans, such as health maintenance organizations and exclusive provider organizations, were more likely to initiate biosimilar therapies than more flexible plans.
Low-flexibility plans, such as health maintenance organizations and exclusive provider organizations, were more likely to initiate biosimilar therapies than more flexible plans, according to a recent analysis published in PharmacoEconomics.
Image credit: Maksym Yemelyanov - stock.adobe.com
The study highlighted that plan type influences biosimilar adoption for both new-starts and switches from the originator to a biosimilar among US patients, and optimizing plan design to boost biosimilar use could generate savings and improve patient access to medications.
“This study reveals that health plan type may have an important impact on switching behavior and biosimilar initiation…. We recommend that future research explore why these plan type differences exist. For example, are certain types of plan more likely to receive larger rebates for biosimilars than others?” the authors noted.
Authors utilized IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters pharmacy claims database to identify patients who switched to biosimilars or started treatment with a biosimilar for 6 biologic-biosimilar pairs from January 2015 to December 2019:
- Avastin (bevacizumab) vs Mvasi (bevacizumab-awwb)
- Epogen/Procrit (epoetin alfa) vs Retacrit (epoetin alfa-epbx)
- Neupogen (filgrastim) vs Nivestym (filgrastim- aafi)
- Neopogen (filgrastim) vs Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz)
- Remicade (infliximab) vs Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb)
- Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) vs Fulphila (pegfilgrastim-jmdb)
In the analyzed sample, 3% of claims corresponded to individuals who switched to biosimilars, while 8% were initiators, indicating a significant market potential for biosimilar production. Overall, there were 63,472 patients who switched and 66,927 patients who started therapy with a biosimilar. Plans were split into 3 categories: high-deductible, low-flexibility, and high-flexibility.
In the study, individuals enrolled in low-flexibility plans exhibited a 2% higher likelihood of becoming biosimilar initiators compared to those in high-deductible plans, indicating a significant 33% increase in the probability of transitioning to a biosimilar. Conversely, enrollment in high-flexibility plans was linked to a reduced probability of being a switcher (0.9% lower) and a lower probability of being a biosimilar initiator (1.0% lower) in comparison to high-deductible plans.
The study proposed exploring plan-related differences, such as potential financial incentives in capitated insurance forms and negotiation capabilities due to limited formularies.
The study acknowledged limitations, focusing on pharmacy claims data, and recommended further research to understand trends in outpatient settings. Understanding health plan influence on biologics and biosimilars was crucial for policymakers and stakeholders aiming to increase biosimilar adoption and reduce drug spending. The authors recognized the challenge for policymakers and researchers as biosimilars gained interchangeability approval. However, data limitations, particularly the absence of rebate information in the dataset, hindered a comprehensive exploration of plan-related drivers.
Reference
Costin J, Mouslim MC, Socal MP, Trujillo A. Exploring the influence of health insurance plans on biosimilar adoption Rates. Pharmacoecon Open. 2024;8(1):115-118. doi:10.1007/s41669-023-00447-6
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 in America: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Impact
July 21st 2024Join us as we explore the complexities of the US biosimilars market, discussing legislative influences, payer and provider adoption factors, and strategies to overcome industry challenges with expert insights from Kyle Noonan, PharmD, MS, value & access strategy manager at Cencora.
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.
What AmerisourceBergen's Report Reveals About Payers, Biosimilar Pricing Trends
May 28th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Tasmina Hydery and Brian Biehn from AmerisourceBergen discussed results from a recent survey, that were also presented at Asembia 2023, diving into the payer perspective on biosimilars and current pricing trends across the US biosimilar industry.
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.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Payer and PBM Policies
November 13th 2024Part 2 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week dives into the complexities of payer and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) policies, how they impact biosimilar accessibility, and how addressing these issues may look under a second Trump term.
