Eli Lilly says that it will not comply with a 2017 California law on drug pricing, and now the state senator who sponsored the bill is hitting back against the drug manufacturer, calling the company’s activities to promote its diabetes programs “disingenuous and offensive.”
Eli Lilly says that it will not comply with a 2017 California law on drug pricing, and now the state senator who sponsored the bill is hitting back against the drug manufacturer, calling the company’s activities to promote its diabetes programs “disingenuous and offensive.”
The law in question, SB 17, which was signed into law in October 2017, requires drug makers to provide to the state 60 days’ notice of price increases above 16% when combined with increases from the previous 2 years. Companies are also required to justify those increases, and insurers must provide information about how drug costs will affect premiums for health plan members. Drug companies are subject to a civil penalty if they do not comply.
In early 2018, Eil Lilly sent a letter to its registered purchases explaining that it was “not able” to provide the required information, and that it would await the outcome of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law before issuing any notices about its drug prices.
The lawsuit, filed by the pharmaceutical industry trade and lobbying group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), claims that the law would force drug makers “…to publicly convey and implicitly endorse the state’s position that the manufacturers are to blame for the allegedly inflated prices of prescription drugs,” and seeks a declaration that the law violates the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Commerce Clause.
Read more about PhRMA’s challenge to SB 17.
Meanwhile, Lilly has launched a program that it calls its Diabetes Solution Center, a helpline with representatives who review financial options with patients who have difficulty paying for their insulin products.
Lilly’s refusal to comply with the law, coupled with its launch of the helpline, has drawn ire from State Senator Ed Hernandez, OD, a Democrat who represents the district of West Covina. Last month, Hernandez penned a letter to Eli Lilly’s chairman and CEO, David A. Ricks, saying, “Your company’s egregious defiance of state law makes your promotion of a ‘Diabetes Solution Center’ even more disingenuous and offensive. If you would simply comply with SB 17, Californians would know when you hike the price of insulin.”
The letter, which was cosigned by representatives of the California Labor Federation, Health Access California, and the labor union Unite Here went on to say that “Californians shouldn’t have to plead their case to telephone operators,” and asked the drug maker to “simply lower the price” that it charges for its insulin products.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Biosimilars Council: PBM Rebate Schemes Cost Americans, Payers $6 Billion
April 10th 2024A report from the Biosimilars Council evaluating IQVIA data found that rebate schemes orchestrated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are costing US patients and payers billions of dollars by suppressing biosimilar adoption.
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.