A federal appeals court Wednesday struck down the individual mandate—the heart of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires everyone to have health coverage—and sent the case back to the federal district court in Texas to determine whether other parts of the law are constitutional and can exist without the mandate.
A federal appeals court Wednesday struck down the individual mandate—the heart of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires everyone to have health coverage—and sent Texas v Azar back to the federal district court in Texas to determine whether other parts of the law are constitutional and can exist without the mandate.
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) is part of the landmark ACA. The Department of Justice had argued that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals should not only affirm that decision, but it should further find that other ACA provisions should also be struck down if the individual mandate was not severable from the rest of the statute.
Whether Wednesday’s ruling—not to mention other actions that are sure to follow—has any effect on the BPCIA will hinge on that question of severability, observers have said.
Earlier this year, conservative health policy figures—including former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD—said they could not imagine a scenario where the BPCIA, which created a pathway to approval for biosimilar drugs, would be allowed to falter, even if the law were struck down.
Indeed, in one reaction, Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tennesse, chairman of the Senate health committee, said in a statement that Congress had ended the mandate, and that "the court has finished the job by ruling the individual mandate itself is unconstitutional." Referring to the rest of the law, he said, “I am not aware of a single senator who said they were voting to repeal Obamacare when they voted to eliminate the individual mandate penalty. I thought the Justice Department’s argument in the case was far-fetched.”
But Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., D-New Jersey, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called the court decision part of a Republican "grand scheme."
"Make no mistake, this has been Republicans’ health care plan all along. There is no secret Republican plan to protect the hundreds of millions of Americans that will be harmed should the rest of the ACA be struck down by the lower court," he said in a statement.
In a 2-1 ruling, the panel called on the district court to review the ACA with "a finer-toothed comb" and "conduct a more searching inquiry into which provisions of the ACA Congress intended to be inseverable from the individual mandate.''
"We do not hold forth on just how fine-toothed that comb should be— he district court may use its best judgment to determine how best to break the ACA down into constituent groupings, segments, or provisions to be analyzed," the majority opinion read.
In a dissent, Circuit Judge Carolyn Dineen King said the plaintiffs—a group of Republican states led by Texas—had no standing to intervene as plaintiffs, stating that they had not suffered any harm since Congress lowered the tax penalty to $0 for not having health insurance as part of the 2017 tax bill.
"Nobody has standing to challenge a law that does nothing. When Congress does nothing, no matter the form that nothing takes, it does not exceed its enumerated powers," wrote King, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter; The New York Times said the 2 judges writing the majority opinion were appointed by Republican presidents, Jennifer Walker Elrod (President George W. Bush in 2007) and Kurt Engelhardt (President Trump in 2018).
The Trump administration’s Justice Department initially did not pursue as aggressive a stance as the state attorneys general. But the administration changed course and reversed its position, arguing the entire law is unconstitutional. This puts the administration in the position of opposing a law that includes the creation of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), upon which the administration has built many of its cost-control programs in oncology care delivery. CMMI authorization is also behind some of the Trump administration’s efforts to control drug costs.
Challenges and Guidance in Biosimilar Assessment: An ISPOR Report on HTA Agency Approaches
May 14th 2024The ISPOR report highlights the urgent need for clear guidance on when and how to conduct health technology assessments (HTAs) for biosimilars, emphasizing the challenges faced by HTA agencies and the evolving role of HTAs in evaluating biosimilar value.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Cordavis Report Outlines Strategies for Biosimilar Development, Access in the US Health Care Market
May 8th 2024Cordavis, a CVS Healthspire company, released a report detailing the current hurdles faced in developing and commercializing biosimilars in the US and highlighting efforts by the organization to enhance access and affordability for these products.
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.
Cencora Analysis Shows Differences in Payer Coverage Between G-CSF Biosimilars
May 2nd 2024Data from a Cencora study showed some misalignment in payer coverage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars, highlighting that while filgrastim biosimilars are often favored over the originator, reference pegfilgrastim still dominates over its biosimilars.