The executive director of the Biosimilars Forum calls for policies to support adoption of lower-cost biologics.
Eight in 10 Americans say prescription drug costs are unreasonably high. Biosimilars are critical to decreasing these costs. Biosimilars are effective, lower-cost treatments that could alleviate the drug cost burden for millions of Americans. Policymakers and regulators should prioritize biosimilars to help patients achieve the full cost-saving potential of these treatments.
Biosimilars are FDA-approved, lower-cost biologic medicines that have the same safety and efficacy as their reference counterparts. Biosimilars are used to treat many chronic, life-threatening conditions, including cancer, diabetes, Crohn disease, arthritis, macular degeneration, and more. The approval pathway for biosimilars was established by the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), within the Affordable Care Act (ACA), leading to the first biosimilar Zarxio approved in 2015 in the United States.
Biosimilars are projected to reduce drug costs by $133 billion in the United States by 2025. In addition to being a lower-cost treatment to brand biologics, biosimilars also lower the cost of other biologics. In fact, a 2021 study found the average price of brand biologics was estimated to be 56% higher without biosimilar competition—and up to 150% higher for some cases. For example, the average sales price (ASP) of the brand biologic Remicade was projected to be 150% higher in the absence of biosimilars, but the competition from biosimilars Inflectra, Renflexis, and Avsola lowered Remicade’s price. In total, biosimilars make up only about 20% share of the accessible biologic market. As this market share increases, so will the cost-savings for patients, providers, and payers.
Policies supporting the adoption of biosimilars are necessary to achieve the full cost savings these treatments can provide. For example, officials should reduce or eliminate out-of-pocket costs for Medicare Part B patients taking a biosimilar through a zero-co-pay policy. This policy would lower costs for patients and has widespread support among patient groups. In fact, more than a dozen US patient groups signed onto a letter to federal health care officials supporting a zero copay policy last year.
Another policy that has proven to support biosimilar adoption in the US and Europe is a shared savings model, which has been particularly successful in the oncology market. In a shared savings model, the savings gained from adopting lower cost biosimilars are shared with the provider and the patient. The Forum recommends policy makers expand the use of shared savings programs to additional therapeutic areas that have biosimilars, ophthalmology, inflammatory diseases, diabetes and other conditions.
Physicians and providers can also be supported through an increased add-on payment for a lower-cost biosimilar. Specifically, increasing the incentive from ASP+6% of the biosimilar to ASP+8% for a period of 5 years would help increase adoption. Twenty-eight health care groups - both patient and provider organizations-signed a letter to US Reps. Schrader and Kinzinger last year supporting this bipartisan policy initiative.
The continued slow market growth for US biosimilars increases the need for federal action, as the cost savings from biosimilars can support patient access and lower drug costs. Biosimilars can also help open the door for the future’s new and innovative treatments. Policymakers and regulators must prioritize biosimilars and create policies that increase their adoption.
Author Information
Juliana M. Reed is the executive director of the Biosimilars Forum. Prior to serving as executive director, Reed served as the Biosimilars Forum president for more than eight years and was one of its original co-founders. Email: juliana@biosimilarsforum.org
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
BioRationality: Commemorating the 15th Anniversary of the BPCIA
April 8th 2025Affirming that analytical characterization is often sufficient for biosimilar approval, minimizing unnecessary clinical testing, and enhancing FDA-led education to counter stakeholder misconceptions are key recommendations put forth in this opinion piece by Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.