A white paper touting biosimilar successes in the United States reasoned that increased market competition will help improve utilization rates, generate substantial savings, and encourage payers to cover biosimilars.
A white paper touting biosimilar successes in the United States reasoned that increased market competition will help improve utilization rates, generate substantial savings, and encourage payers to cover biosimilars.
“The industry continues to build on valuable learnings that will help systems be better prepared for the influx of biosimilars that are on the precipice of approval. We continue to adapt and learn from best practices that will allow us to accelerate realizing the benefits of biosimilars in the US,” wrote the authors.
The paper was penned by Bhavesh Shah, RPh, BCOP, chief pharmacy officer of hematology oncology pharmacy at Boston Medical Center; and Ryan Haumschild, PharmD, MS, MBA, director of pharmacy services at Emory Healthcare and Winship Cancer Institute. Haumschild is also an advisory board member for The Center for Biosimilars® and an editorial board member for The American Journal of Managed Care®.
Between 2010 and 2015, 70% of drug spending growth in the United States was attributed to biologics, which accounted for 43% of the $211 billion that was spent on pharmaceuticals in 2019 despite only representing about 2% of prescriptions. Estimates have predicted that biosimilars could generate upwards of $100 billion between 2021 and 2025.
Although some of the barriers to biosimilar adoption have been addressed—such as coverage—the United States still has a ways to go to realize the true extent to which biosimilar savings can be achieved. The authors theorized that if there were more biosimilar product entries, higher biosimilar volume share, and lower prices for biosimilars and reference products, savings attributed to biosimilars could be as high as $224.2 billion.
Some of the remaining barriers to biosimilar adoption are:
Each biosimilar undergoes complex processes for contracting, reimbursement, and policy decision-making, and biosimilar preferences can differ between prescribers and payers, creating a lack of consistency across the board. Prescribers may also have different perceptions of biosimilars compared with patients. Evolving inventory management procedures for biosimilars could help address concerns regarding stocking, storage, creating new orders, and safety alerts, especially when having to manage multiple biosimilars for the same reference product.
It can also be difficult for clinic personnel and pharmacists to track electronic health record changes and substitution statuses. Coverage and reimbursement policies can vary between payers, as can patient support programs offered by manufacturers, which can complicate patient and provider navigation of biosimilar options.
Increased competition between manufacturers has the potential to encourage a higher focus on drug formation practices, supply reliability, lowered costs, more focus on patient support and access programs, continued commitment to biosimilar innovation, and a financial commitment to increasing medication access.
“As more biosimilars enter the market, manufacturers will be held to higher standards and counted on to help make adoption less difficult. Healthy competition can help drive accountability and new innovations, which could increase the quality of care while simultaneously lowering costs,” the authors noted.
Additionally, pharmacist-driven biosimilar substitution programs could help boost biosimilar adoption. The authors cited a study that assessed the utilization trends and financial impacts of implementing a substitution program, which found that utilization of pegfilgrastim biosimilars jumped from 20% to 60% during the study period, resulting in a 18% jump in savings for payers.
The authors were hopeful about the possibility of extending the biosimilar reimbursement bump laid out in the Inflation Reduction Act, saying “bipartisan support in Congress for patent reform and formulary coverage initiatives are gaining momentum. Combined, these initiatives are poised to unlock the incredible potential of biosimilars in the US.”
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.