Before the Wisconsin State Assembly’s health committee today is Assembly Bill 679, an act to address biosimilar substitution at the pharmacy level.
Before the Wisconsin State Assembly’s health committee today is Assembly Bill 679, an act to address biosimilar substitution at the pharmacy level. The state Senate passed the measure as Senate Bill 575 last week.
Under the bill, pharmacists can dispense cheaper interchangeable biosimilars instead of brand-name biologics unless the prescriber opposes the substitution. This strategy would follow the current process for the substitution of generic drugs in the pharmacy setting. The bill defines an “interchangeable biological product” as a biological product that the FDA says meets standards for interchangeability pursuant to federal law. Thus far, however, the FDA has not granted any biosimilar an interchangeable designation.
The Wisconsin State Journal reports that the 2 Republican lead sponsors of the bill, Representative Mike Rohrkaste and Senator Leah Vukmir, presenting in the Assembly today, say that allowing pharmacy-level substitution could save consumers up to 20%. “This bill will result in the lowering of prescription drug prices for Wisconsin families and seniors,” said Vukimir during a public hearing in December 2017.
Since 2013, 35 states and Puerto Rico have introduced and subsequently passed legislation on biologics and biosimilar substitution, according to the National Conference of State Legislature.
While the specifics of state laws vary, most legislation regarding biosimilar substitution includes 5 principles endorsed by Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), a biotech industry trade group. BIO considers these principles essential to overcome specific challenges with biologics:
Notably, laws in Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, and North Carolina do not require pharmacists to notify patients of substitution. In fact, Florida does not even require prescriber notification when a substitution is made.
Several patient groups in addition to drug makers Pfizer, Amgen, AbbVie, and Johnson & Johnson reportedly support Assembly Bill 679.
Review Calls for Path to Global Harmonization of Biosimilar Development Regulations
March 17th 2025Global biosimilar regulatory harmonization will be needed to reduce development costs and improve patient access, despite challenges posed by differing national requirements and regulatory frameworks, according to review authors.
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.
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.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
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.