While the FDA appears to be taking a more active role in leveraging its position to influence drug prices, the majority of efforts to bring down pharmaceutical costs are taking place at the state level.
The year began with President Trump’s accusations that pharmaceutical developers were “getting away with murder,” expectations that an executive order on drug pricing was imminent, and calls from stakeholder groups for the government to use such legislation as the Bayh-Dole Act to force drug makers to bring down high prescription drug costs. However, efforts to reduce drug prices appear to have stalled at the federal level as the major focus of congressional activity turned toward healthcare reform.
While the FDA appears to be taking a more active role in leveraging its position to influence drug prices, the majority of remaining efforts to bring down pharmaceutical costs are taking place at the state level. These state legislative efforts, as BioPharma Dive points out, tend to be aimed at narrow goals—including restricting the tactics of pharmacy benefit mangers (PBMs), tracking increased drug prices, and empowering states to impose penalties on entities that flout regulation—rather than seeking comprehensive reform.
The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), a non-profit, non-partisan academy of state health policymakers, reports the following successful 2017 drug pricing initiatives:
A number of other states have bills currently in committee. Those pending efforts include a California bill that would allow for greater regulation of PBMs, an Illinois bill that would require drug makers to notify purchasers of increases in drug prices 60 days prior to the increase, a New Jersey bill that would authorize the state’s attorney general to negotiate discounts for opioid antidotes on behalf of public entities, and Pennsylvania’s effort to establish a Pharmaceutical Transparency Commission to investigate the reasonability of retail drug prices.
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.