Last week, a federal appeals court in Maryland ruled that a law, passed in 2017 and aimed at combatting increases in the price of generic medicines, is unconstitutional.
Last week, a federal appeals court in Maryland ruled that a law, passed in 2017 and aimed at combatting increases in the price of generic medicines, is unconstitutional.
The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) filed a suit against the state in a US district court in Maryland last year, alleging that the bill grants the state “unprecedented powers to regulate the national pharmaceutical market, violating the [US] Constitution and posing harm to vulnerable patient communities.”
The bill targeted “price gouging” in the sale of off-patent or generic drugs by requiring the Maryland Medical Assistance Program to notify the state’s attorney general of an increase in the prices of such medicines. In addition, it authorized the attorney general to require a drug manufacturer to turn over its records concerning the drug, and permitted a circuit court to compel action or impose penalties of up to $10,000 per infraction on the drug manufacturer.
In a 2 to 1 ruling, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law would regulate trade beyond Maryland’s borders, which violates the so-called dormant commerce clause. Judge Stephanie D. Thacker wrote an opinion that ordered a lower-level federal judge to bar the law from taking effect.
“Maryland cannot, even in an effort to protect its consumers from skyrocketing prescription drug costs, impose its preferences in this manner,” wrote Judge Thacker.
This ruling comes as a disappointment for Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who supported the bill and helped get it passed in the General Assembly in 2017.
“We remain committed to pursuing efforts to eliminate price gouging and to safeguarding Marylanders’ access to prescription drugs,” Frosh told The Baltimore Sun.
The president of the AAM, Chip Davis Jr., JD, was pleased with the outcome, saying in a statement that, “As AAM has always maintained, this law, and any others modeled from it, would harm patients because the law would reduce generic drug competition and choice, thus resulting in an overall increase in drug costs due to increased reliance upon more costly branded medications."
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.