The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 Welfare Fund has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Johnson and Johnson in Pennsylvania’s Eastern District Court. The suit takes aim at the drug maker over its blockbuster innovator infliximab, Remicade.
The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 Welfare Fund has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson in Pennsylvania’s Eastern District Court. The suit takes aim at the drug maker over its blockbuster innovator infliximab, Remicade.
The Pharma Letter reports that the union’s benefits fund has alleged anti-competitive behavior on Johnson & Johnson’s part. The complaint claims that the drug manufacturer has engaged in exclusionary contracting that is designed to maintain a monopoly on the US infliximab marketplace. The union, which represents grocery workers in the state of New York, seeks a jury trial over the drug maker’s contracting, rebate policies, and product bundling that it alleges are designed to block insurers from reimbursing for either of the 2 available biosimilar infliximab products, Inflectra and Renflexis.
The union is the second entity to challenge the reference drug sponsor in recent days; in September, Pfizer, maker of Inflectra, filed a district court lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pfizer alleged that Johnson & Johnson has effectively denied patients access to biosimilar therapies by threatening to withhold rebates from insurers unless they agree to exclude biosimilars from their formularies. The suit claims that as many as 70% of patients who have commercial insurance coverage are unable to gain access to Inflectra due to the drug maker’s conduct.
Johnson & Johnson said in a statement concerning the Pfizer case that “Competition is doing what competition is meant to do: driving deeper discounts that will lead to overall lower costs for infliximab, including [Remicade]. We stand by our contracts.” The reference infliximab sponsor added that “Rather than demonstrating value and working to win the trust of physicians and patients, Pfizer is asking the court to protect it from having to compete.”
Additionally, the company highlighted the fact biosimilars are not generics, and not identical to reference products. It suggested that, instead, Pfizer’s Inflectra is a new medicine that has not yet proven itself before physicians, payers, or patients.
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.
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.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Interchangeability
November 14th 2024Part 3 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week, penned by Dracey Poore, director of biosimilars at Cardinal Health, explores the critical topic of interchangeability, examining its role in shaping biosimilar adoption and the broader implications for accessibility.
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.