The bill seeks to prohibit brand-name drug makers from delaying the entry of generics or biosimilars by compensating competitors to keep their products off the market for a period of time in so-called pay-for-delay arrangements.
The Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act, first introduced to Congress in January 2017 as the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act, was recently reintroduced by Senators Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
The bill seeks to prohibit brand-name drug makers from delaying the entry of generics or biosimilars by compensating competitors to keep their products off the market for a period of time in so-called pay-for-delay arrangements.
While such deals are illegal under antitrust law, the proposed legislation would specifically target these agreements, especially as they arise to settle patent infringement cases. The bill would require that agreements that result from United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings be reported to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice, and would establish the authority to levy penalties if a settlement is found to violate the law.
This week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its cost estimate for the bill as reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary, and it finds that enacting the legislation would reduce the deficit by $613 million by 2029. Those reductions include $520 million in reduced direct spending and $93 million in increased revenues.
The CBO also estimates that the bill would reduce direct spending subject to appropriation by $24 million by 2024 as a result of lower estimated drug prices for discretionary health programs.
In terms of how prevalent such pay-for-delay deals are in the US market, the FTC’s most recent staff report on branded drug makers’ settlement with generic competitors found that, during fiscal years 2014 and 2015, there were 14 deals—involving 11 different products with combined annual US sales of approximately $4.6 billion—that were potentially anticompetitive. That number was down from 21 such deals the year prior, and down substantially from the record high of 40 such deals in the financial year 2012.
Among those deals, 10 included compensation solely in the form of a cash payment for litigation fees. Those fees ranged from $15,000 to $9.5 million. Four of the deals included compensation in the form of a branded drug manufacturer promising not to market an authorized generic that would compete with the generic manufacturer’s product for some period of time.
Despite the fact that such deals appear to be on the decline, pay-for-delay settlements have been increasingly in the public eye as US stakeholders seek extra scrutiny of deals involving such high-cost therapies as adalimumab (Humira). In 2018, Klobuchar and Grassley asked the FTC to investigate whether AbbVie, maker of Humira, had engaged in pay-for-delay settlements that mean biosimilars of adalimumab will not reach the US market until 2023, despite the fact that these drugs reached European patients in October 2018.
However, AbbVie has consistently opposed using the term pay-for-delay to describe its settlements with biosimilar developers, noting that its competitors will be paying royalties to AbbVie once their products launch, and that AbbVie will not compensate the biosimilar product sponsors.
What Stands in the Way of Biosimilar Use Across MENA Countries?
May 21st 2025Despite the clear promise of cost savings and expanded access, the path to integrating generics and biosimilars across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is tangled in a web of distrust, inconsistent policies, and deep-rooted cultural preferences for branded drugs.
Escaping the Void: All Things Biosimilars With Craig & G
May 4th 2025To close out the Festival of Biologics, Craig Burton and Giuseppe Randazzo from the Association for Accessible Medicines and the Biosimilars Council tackle the current biosimilar landscape and how the industry can emerge from the "biosimilar void."
The Trump Administration’s Drug Price Actions and Why US Prices Are Already Sky-High
May 17th 2025While the Trump administration’s latest executive order touts sweeping drug price cuts through international benchmarking, the broader pharmaceutical pricing crisis in the US reveals a far more complex web of development costs, profit incentives, and absent price controls—raising the question of whether any single policy, including potential drug tariffs, can truly untangle it.
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.
Targeted Reimbursement Encourages Oncology Biosimilar Use
May 7th 2025Incentivizing physicians with modest financial bonuses may seem like a small step, but in Japan’s outpatient oncology setting, it helped push trastuzumab biosimilars toward broader adoption, demonstrating how even limited reimbursement reforms can reshape prescribing behavior under the right conditions.