State lawmakers are pushing legislation to advance automatic biosimilar substitution at a rapid pace across the nation—33 states and Puerto Rico have already taken action, and 8 more states have bills pending, according to Stephanie Hoops, a market analyst at Decision Resources Group.
State lawmakers are pushing legislation to advance automatic biosimilar substitution at a rapid pace across the nation—33 states and Puerto Rico have already taken action, and 8 more states have bills pending, according to Stephanie Hoops, a market analyst at Decision Resources Group (DRG). Hoops notes that although the FDA controls the approval of biosimilars and their interchangeability designations, achieving interchangeable status—demonstrating that a biosimilar may be substituted for its reference biologic under the FDA’s rules—is only one facet of the process of attaining product substitution, because state legislatures exert control via legislation.
In Hoops’ opinion piece, which appears in the June 22, 2017, issue of Life Science Leader, she advocates for the importance of keeping an eye on state laws addressing biosimilar substitution. “In laws enacted thus far, sunset clauses, errors, and omissions have appeared,” she notes. “Add to that the dissimilar requirements observed from state to state, and it becomes clear that it’s imperative to keep abreast of legislative activity.” DRG’s research shows that most states have enacted biosimilar interchangeability laws, but a third (17 states) have not (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming). Among that group, 8 states have a substitution law pending (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Michigan, New York, and Vermont).
Most of the existing legislation deters automatic substitution and protects the physician-patient relationship by ensuring transparency and communication. State laws typically include 5 principles endorsed by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), a biotechnology industry trade group, which BIO considers essential for overcoming challenges specifically faced by biologics:
Most states have enacted laws that incorporate all 5 BIO principles, DRG found, but laws across the nation are far from uniform. For example, Massachusetts enacted a bill in 2014 that aligns with all 5 principles—which makes sense given the state’s high prescription drug volume due to a high concentration of commercially insured residents, a low rate of uninsured residents, and expanded Medicaid eligibility. However, laws in Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, and North Carolina do not require pharmacists to notify patients of substitutions. Florida does not even require that prescribers be notified when their prescriptions are changed.
Virginia limits biosimilar substitution by requiring pharmacists to notify prescribers of any substitutions and to provide patients with retail cost information for the prescribed biologic and the interchangeable biosimilar. But the state’s provider notification provision expired in 2015, and it is not yet known whether it will be reinstated.
Washington State, which Hoops calls a “tough regulatory environment for industry,” has prescriber and patient notification, but given the opposition voiced in public comments, that policy might not last. The state already requires pharmacists to automatically substitute biosimilars if the substituted product has a lower wholesale price than the reference product, the prescriber has not prohibited substitution, and the patient does not request the reference product. If a pharmacist is filling a prescription for a patient in a state-purchased healthcare program, the pharmacist must substitute a preferred drug in place of a nonpreferred drug within a therapeutic class.
Hoops notes that there are errors in some state biosimilar substitution laws; for example, some laws refer to the Orange Book when in fact it is the Purple Book that the FDA uses to list biological products, including biosimilars and interchangeable biological products the agency licenses. (The Orange Book is a resource for FDA-approved small-molecule generics.) In addition, most state laws cover retail pharmacist dispensing of biosimilar products instead of provider-administered biological products—the products affected by these initial rounds of FDA-reviewed biosimilars. Thus, the state laws do not require patient notification in office-treatment settings when prescribers are performing the substitutions themselves.
The laws so far enacted by the states show that legislators acknowledge that biologics require a different treatment than traditional small-molecule generics. The laws need some adjustment, says Hoops, to correct oversights and mistakes as more biosimilars enter the market. But the bottom line is that the industry must continue to work toward safeguarding the physician-patient relationship and to protect against inappropriate use of biosimilar substitutes.
Patrick Plues, BIO’s vice president of state government affairs, believes the 17 states that have not yet enacted biosimilar substitution laws ultimately will do so, and the organization is pleased with the progress made at the state level. “These bills will actually bring down prescription drug costs by giving patients easier access to these lower-cost biologic medicines,” he said.
Julie Reed: Why 2024 Is Important for Biosimilars
April 17th 2024Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, showcases how the biosimilar industry is expected to develop throughout 2024, including major policy changes and hope for continued improvement in market share for adalimumab biosimilars.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
BioRationality: Removing the Misconceptions Surrounding Interchangeability
April 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, outlines the current state of interchangeable biosimilars in the US and policy changes needed to clear up misconceptions surrounding the meaning behind interchangeability designations.
What AmerisourceBergen's Report Reveals About Payers, Biosimilar Pricing Trends
May 28th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Tasmina Hydery and Brian Biehn from AmerisourceBergen discussed results from a recent survey, that were also presented at Asembia 2023, diving into the payer perspective on biosimilars and current pricing trends across the US biosimilar industry.
Rising Biosimilar Adoption for an Italian Payer Will Benefit National Health Care System, Patients
April 9th 2024Data from 2021 and 2022 indicates increasing biosimilar use in an Italian health care company, with potential for full adoption in the future, benefiting both the National Health System and citizens through efficient and sustainable health care policies.
Review Highlights Most Popular European Policies to Boost Biosimilar Uptake
April 3rd 2024Although tender systems are a common strategy to encourage biosimilar utilization across Europe, policies like automatic substitution are rarely utilized, according to a systematic review of European policies and biosimilar uptake.