This month, Maryland’s Attorney General Brian Frosh petitioned the Supreme Court to uphold the “first-in-the-nation” law against drug price-gouging.
This month, Maryland’s Attorney General Brian Frosh petitioned the Supreme Court to uphold the “first-in-the-nation” law against drug price-gouging.The law gives the attorney general the authority to review price information about generic drugs. If the state’s lawyers could show that prices were increasing too steeply, they could seek to order the prices reduced, or issue fines to the drug companies.
The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) filed a suit against the state in a US district court in Maryland last year, alleging the bill grants the state “unprecedented powers to regulate the national pharmaceutical market, violating the [US] Constitution and posing harm to vulnerable patient communities.”
In April 2018, a federal appeals court in Maryland ruled that the law, which was passed in 2017, was unconstitutional. In explaining her decision to bar the law from taking effect, Judge Stephanie D. Thacker wrote an opinion stating that “Maryland cannot, even in an effort to protect its consumers from skyrocketing prescription drug costs, impose its preferences in this manner.”
After the decision in late April, Frosh requested that a full federal appeals court rehear the case, explaining that “The resolution of this appeal will substantially affect the responses of state governments to a problem with both fiscal and public health dimensions: the rapidly rising cost of prescription drugs.”
In July, a federal appeals court declined to hear a petition to rehear the case, letting the previous ruling stand.
In reaching the decision to decline to rehear the case, 9 judges voted against, 3 judges voted in favor, and 2 judges did not vote. One of the judges who voted in favor of rehearing the case before the full court, Judge James A. Wynn Jr., wrote that “At a minimum, [the case deserves] the careful deliberation of this entire Court.”
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.