In a new paper published in Cancer Care Management and Research, researchers examine the progress that the United States has made toward reforming healthcare since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, with a particular focus on the role that biosimilar products may play in achieving the ACA’s 3-fold goal of increasing access to treatment, controlling costs, and improving patient care.
In a paper published in Cancer Care Management and Research, researchers examine the progress that the United States has made toward reforming healthcare since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, with a particular focus on the role that biosimilar products may play in achieving the ACA’s 3-fold goal of increasing access to treatment, controlling costs, and improving patient care.
The report’s authors note that since the implementation of the ACA:
The authors note a lack of comprehensive data on health outcomes before and after the ACA’s implementation, however. They also highlight the fact that, though insurance coverage has grown, the level of individual coverage remains low. Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs have increased, and the expanded coverage of high-risk patients has resulted in cost increases. Furthermore, the future of the ACA is in flux in the current US administration, though the report’s authors suggest that the ACA’s aims of expanded coverage, controlled costs, and improved care quality are likely to endure under any new legislation.
Regardless of whether the ACA is repealed or replaced, the authors note, the affordability of biologic products is of high concern to the US healthcare system. Biologics demonstrate significant improvements in patient care, and can help prevent expensive interventions and produce lower costs overall. However, biologic products are also more expensive and more difficult to manufacture than small-molecule drugs, a fact that can increase treatment costs. Biosimilars—which are highly similar to their reference products and which can achieve equivalent therapeutic results at a lower price point—have the potential to control the costs of biologic therapies.
While uptake of biosimilars in the United States has been slow to start, the United States may follow European examples of strong cost savings; biosimilars could, the authors say, save the US healthcare system $44.2 billion between 2014 and 2024. The report’s authors also suggest that the reductions in healthcare costs to payers will in turn lower premiums and reduce OOP costs for patients, with a subsequent increase in patient access and greater patient adherence to treatment protocols.
However, biosimilars face substantial barriers to provider uptake in the US marketplace. One industry-sponsored survey shows that some clinicians were reluctant to switch from a reference product to a biosimilar, especially in cases of rheumatologic and immunologic disorders. Many professionals noted that they would require long-term evidence on safety and immunogenicity of biosimilars before considering using such agents to treat chronic disorders. With respect to the treatment of acute diseases, however, many clinicians felt that biosimilars would increase patient access to a broader range of appropriate treatments at a controlled cost.
Biosimilars also face financial disincentives to adoption; in oncology, for instance, physicians and institutions may choose to use reference products because of their higher markup. Hospitals often profit from administering expensive infusion medicines because the markup of an infused product is greater in an inpatient setting than in a physician’s office. This practice may result in a disincentive to prescribe biosimilar products in order to take advantage of greater potential profit. However, new value-based reimbursement models, such as the Oncology Care Model, reduce incentives for clinicians to use higher-cost reference products and encourage providers to contract with biopharmaceutical manufactures, a practice that could push providers to adopt lower-cost biosimilars.
Medicare reimbursement policies may also affect biosimilar uptake when monoclonal antibody biosimilars (etanercept and adalimumab) enter the US market; while currently approved biosimilars are covered under Medicare Part B benefits, new biosimilar products will be covered under Part D, and will be subject to the so-called “donut hole” or coverage gap (during which enrollees will pay 45% of the discounted price for branded drugs). This may result in cheaper biosimilars representing higher OOP costs for patients. In order to incent patients to adopt biosimilars, patients may need to realize some of the expected savings from biosimilars through lower OOP costs. Avalere Health suggests that the United States either require manufactures to provide discounts for biosimilars for patients affected by the Part D coverage gap, or create a formulary tier for biosimilars that would represent reduced cost-sharing for patients.
Payers, too, see uncertainties in the potential for cost savings presented by biosimilars. They are concerned that financial incentives may lead to overuse of biologics and biosimilars, resulting in increased aggregate costs for treatment even as unit prices for drugs drop.
Other market access barriers to biosimilars include the speed of the regulatory approvals process, the amount of litigation undertaken by manufactures of reference products, the readiness of stakeholders to adopt biosimilars, and the level of provider education about biosimilars. Post-approval safety studies and real-world data collection, the report’s authors say, will be necessary to instill clinical confidence and to measure the impact of wider access to biologic treatments.
The report’s authors conclude that, while the ACA has achieved some of its goals, the United States will need to implement new solutions to address rising healthcare costs in the face of growing demand. Increased use of biosimilar products is one such method, the authors write, to expand patient access to treatment, to reduce the costs of prescriptions, and to improve the overall quality of patient care.
Julie Reed: Why 2024 Is Important for Biosimilars
April 17th 2024Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, showcases how the biosimilar industry is expected to develop throughout 2024, including major policy changes and hope for continued improvement in market share for adalimumab biosimilars.
Exploring the Biosimilar Horizon: Julie Reed's Predictions for 2024
February 18th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, returns to discuss her predictions for the biosimilar industry for 2024 and beyond as well as the impact that the Forum's 4 new members will have on the organization's mission.
Alvotech’s Stelara Biosimilar, Selarsdi, Receives FDA Approval
April 16th 2024Alvotech’s Selarsdi (ustekinumab-aekn), a biosimilar referencing Stelara (ustekinumab), gained FDA approval, making it the second ustekinumab biosimilar and second for the company to be given the green light for the American market.
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.
What Clinicians Need to Know About Using Biosimilars to Treat IBD
April 13th 2024A review article, intended to act as a guide for clinicians, summarizes the available infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars for treating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as well as others that are coming down the pipeline.
Global Biosimilar Market Projected to Reach $1.3 Trillion by 2032
April 11th 2024The global biosimilar market is projected to surge from $25.1 billion in 2022 to approximately $1.3 trillion by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate of 17.6%, driven mainly by the increasing prevalence of cancer and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, as outlined in a report by Towards Healthcare.