The pharmaceutical industry trade and lobbying group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) sued California state officials in federal court on December 8, 2017, over California’s new drug pricing law, which the group states is “unprecedented and unconstitutional.”
The pharmaceutical industry trade and lobbying group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) sued California state officials in federal court on December 8, 2017, over California’s new drug pricing law, Senate Bill 17 (SB 17), which the group states is “unprecedented and unconstitutional.” PhRMA argues that the California law, set to take effect January 1, 2019, “intentionally exports California’s policy choices regarding prescription drug pricing on the entire nation.”
The law, which was signed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown on October 9, 2017, requires drug makers to provide 60 days’ notice of price increases above 16% when combined with increases from the previous 2 years, and they must also justify those increases. In addition, insurers will have to provide information about how drug costs affect premiums.
The bill would also require the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) to enforce the provisions requiring manufacturer reporting, and would subject a manufacturer to liability for a civil penalty if the information described above is not reported. Some of the pricing information will be available to the public on OSHPD’s website. “Californians have the right to know why their medication costs are out of control, especially when pharmaceutical profits are soaring,” Governor Brown said in a statement.
In its complaint, PhRMA argues that SB 17 “forces drug manufacturers to publicly convey and implicitly endorse the state’s position that the manufacturers are to blame for the allegedly inflated prices of prescription drugs.” Further, the group says the law incorrectly and unfairly singles out drug makers for public condemnation, and will cause market disruptions such as drug stockpiling and reduced competition. The group seeks a court declaration that the law violates the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Commerce Clause.
The bill’s sponsor, State Senator Ed Hernandez, said he was confident the law would be upheld, and said the lawsuit was another example of pharma refusing to accept any responsibility for the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs.
Analysts have noted that PhRMA is concerned that the California law has been signed because California is such a large state, and could potentially serve as a model for other states seeking to act on drug prices. Maryland and Nevada are also implementing their own drug pricing legislation. PhRMA spent nearly $17 million in the last several years to oppose SB 17 before it was signed into law.
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.