A study of coverage decisions by some of the nation’s largest payers indicates biosimilars get preferred status just 14% of the time.
Biosimilars are gaining traction in the United states, but the majority of payers are putting them on an equal footing with reference drugs when it comes to coverage decisions, according to a new study.
US health plans granted preferred status to biosimilars in just 14% of coverage decisions, according to a survey of decisions issued by 17 of the largest US commercial health plans, representing approximately 60% of commercially covered patients. By contrast, the reference product was given preferred status in 33% of decisions, and in 53% of decisions, neither the biosimilar nor the reference product was preferred.
The study was conducted by investigators from the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts. They evaluated 535 coverage decisions for biosimilars available in the United States in August 2019.
Investigators treated a biosimilar brand and an indication for that biosimilar as an individual coverage decision. For example, there were 5 potential coverage decisions a payer could make for Mvasi, a bevacizumab biosimilar indicated for 5 types of cancer.
There was variation in how payers covered biosimilars. Just 2 of the plans covered biosimilars as preferred products in ≥ 50% of their decisions. Two health plans always covered biosimilars and reference products with no preferences in each decision.
There was also variation in decisions regarding types of biosimilars. For example, 51% of plans gave the Zarxio filgrastim biosimilar preferred status, but 65% and 59% of plans preferred the reference product over the Renflexis and Inflectra infliximab biosimilars, respectively.
“Reasons for this variation are unknown, but may include more successful negotiation of rebates at some plans than others,” the authors wrote. They said rebates are not publicly disclosed, which makes it difficult to verify this hypothesis.
The authors concluded that their findings may help to further elucidate why uptake of biosimilars may be lagging in the United States.
“The slow uptake of biosimilars in the US has been attributed to factors such as patent disputes and reference product manufacturer tactics to delay biosimilar market entry. This study suggests that a lack of preferred coverage among health plans may also be delaying uptake,” they wrote.
Earlier this year, Health New England said that it had saved $1.7 million over a year's span by using prior authorization to spur use of biosimilar infliximab, achieving 93% utilization.
Reference
Chambers JD, Lai RC, Margaretos NM, Panzer AD, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ. Coverage for biosimilars vs reference products among US commercial health plans. JAMA. 2020;19;323(19):1972-1973. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2229
Enhancing Adoption of Infused Biosimilars for a Sustainable Future
October 30th 2024An IQVIA report highlights challenges to the sustainability of infused biosimilars in the US, citing rebate walls and reimbursement policies, and proposes key solutions to enhance adoption and benefits for all stakeholders.
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.
FDA and Industry Experts Unpack Biosimilar Device Requirements
October 23rd 2024At the GRx+Biosims 2024 conference, a panel of industry experts and FDA officials discussed evolving device requirements for biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars, highlighting new approaches to comparative use human factors studies, regulatory challenges, and alternative validation methods.
Biosimilars Oncology Roundup for June 2024—Podcast Edition
July 7th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we review biosimilar news coming out of June, with clinical trial results from conferences and a study showcasing how to overcome economic and noneconomic barriers to oncology biosimilars.
Phase 3 Study Reports Similar Efficacy Between SB17, Stelara in Psoriasis
October 19th 2024A phase 3, 28-week comparative clinical trial in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis confirmed similarity of the proposed ustekinumab biosimilar SB17 (Samsung Bioepis) to the reference product (Stelara) in efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity.
Eye on Pharma: Aflibercept Legal Drama; PBM, Humira Biosimilars; Denosumab Regulatory Review
October 15th 2024Regeneron appeals legal decision after judge refuses to block an aflibercept biosimilar; Prime Therapeutics, a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), becomes the latest to offer biosimilars referencing Humira (adalimumab) at a low cost; the FDA and European Medicines Agency accept a denosumab biosimilar candidate for review.