Among the briefs filed in defense of the Affordable Care Act and, with it, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), is one from the Association for Accessible Medicines, which argues the BPCIA is vital to biosimilars market development.
Even if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is ruled unconstitutional, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), which is part of that legislation and allows for biosimilar licensing, should be preserved, according to a brief argument filed by the Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM).
The Supreme Court’s deadline was this month for receiving briefs in the case of the constitutionality of the ACA. In December, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that the individual mandate requiring individuals to purchase insurance under the ACA was unconstitutional, a move that put the survivability of the ACA and the BPCIA in doubt.
“FDA-approved biosimilars offer patients and taxpayers enormous cost savings on life-saving treatments,” said the AAM’s interim CEO and general counsel, Jeff Francer, in a statement. “If a constitutional challenge to some provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) resulted in the invalidation of the entire ACA, including the BPCIA, a decade of progress by AAM and its members would be lost—and at a crucial moment.”
A Vital Piece of Legislation
The AAM argues that biosimilars have the potential to save $54 billion or more for patients and health care systems over the next 7 years. The BPCIA is a tool for streamlining biosimilar approvals, and therefore it is a vital piece of legislation, according to the legal brief.
“The BPCIA is exactly the type of legislation that should not be declared invalid based on a constitutional challenge to another part of the same public law….The BPCIA stands on its own and serves an important public purpose that is entirely disconnected from the insurance-related provisions of the ACA that are challenged here," the brief stated.
At issue is whether the individual mandate can be “severed” from other provisions of the act. If not, the entire ACA could be thrown out and Congress would have to enact replacement legislation to repair the damage. The ACA comprises 10 titles, and the mandate is part of Title I. Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas originally held that the mandate was so interwoven with the rest of the ACA that it could not be severed. After reviewing the case, the Fifth Circuit agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional but left it up to the Supreme Court to decide the issue of severability.
Part of what happens to the BPCIA depends on how the Supreme Court interprets Congress’ original intent, Stacie Ropka, PhD, JD, said in a recent interview with The Center for Biosimilars®.
“Did Congress intend for the entire act to rise and fall together? Looking at the BPCIA, it was originally debated as, and is intended to be, a standalone bill with provisions that are not interwoven with any other provisions of the ACA. It was sort of shoehorned into the ACA at the last minute. Thus, there’s a credible argument that Congress intended the BPCIA to remain intact even if other provisions of the ACA are found unconstitutional,” said Ropka, who practices law with Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP of Hartford, Connecticut.
The AAM contends that the BPCIA “passes every test for severability.”
Fallout from a ruling adverse to the BPCIA would remove the FDA's authority to review and approve abbreviated biologic drug applications, Ropka said. It also would abruptly halt reviews in progress for biosimilar agents. Developers instead would have to seek approval under the traditional regulatory pathway, which is not designed for biosimilars specifically and would be more cumbersome.
A key element of the BPCIA is that it allows for a biosimilar patent dispute resolution process designed to resolve intellectual property issues prior to a product’s arrival on market. Without it, developers would be faced with having to launch products at risk of litigation, and this might dissuade them from bringing biosimilars to market, which in turn could reduce the level of competition in the drug marketplace and, ultimately, the consumer benefit from lower prices.
“It’s really hard to see what kind of benefit these biosimilar developers would gain if they decided to go on a more traditional approval pathway,” Ropka said.
Eye on Pharma: Aflibercept Legal Drama; PBM, Humira Biosimilars; Denosumab Regulatory Review
October 15th 2024Regeneron appeals legal decision after judge refuses to block an aflibercept biosimilar; Prime Therapeutics, a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), becomes the latest to offer biosimilars referencing Humira (adalimumab) at a low cost; the FDA and European Medicines Agency accept a denosumab biosimilar candidate for review.
Decoding the Patent Puzzle: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Biosimilars
March 17th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Ha Kung Wong, JD, an intellectual patent attorney and partner at Venable LLP, details the confusing landscape that is the US patent system and how it can be improved to help companies overcome barriers to biosimilar competition.
Patent Dance Insights: A Q&A on Reducing Legal Battles in the Biosimilar Landscape
August 18th 2024In an interview, Ha Kung Wong, an intellectual property attorney, explained that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 provides a structured but optional "patent dance" for biosimilars, which helps streamline patent disputes, potentially reducing litigation and encouraging early settlements.
Eye on Pharma: VA Picks Hadlima; Biocon, Sandoz Partnership; A Stelara Settlement Abroad
February 21st 2024The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has chosen to replace Humira (adalimumab) with Organon’s biosimilar version on its national formulary; Biocon Biologics and Sandoz announce a new partnership in Australia for 2 biosimilars; Alvotech settles with Johnson & Johnson over its biosimilar to Stelara (ustekinumab) for the European and Canadian markets.
Patient With MS Sues J&J Over ERISA Violation
February 14th 2024After a patient with multiple sclerosis (MS) was forced to pay exorbitant out-of-pocket costs for a brand name medication when she could’ve gotten a generic for way less, the patient filed a class action complaint against her employer, Johnson & Johnson (J&J), for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).