During the Community Oncology Alliance Payer Summit, held October 29-30, 2018, The Center for Biosimilars® had the opportunity to sit down with several oncologists to discuss their opinions on and experiences with biosimilars.
During the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) Payer Summit, held October 29-30, 2018, The Center for Biosimilars® had the opportunity to sit down with several oncologists to discuss their opinions on and experiences with biosimilars.
When asked how he feels about the upcoming availability of anticancer biosimilars as treatment options, Lalan Wilfong, MD, executive vice president of Quality Programs at Texas Oncology, was hopeful. “I think most practices are looking forward to the development of biosimilars, similar to the generic market when generics were introduced that’s when prices actually started falling for cancer therapy,” said Wilfong.
Kashyap Patel, MD, CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care echoed Wilfong’s statement, but also explained that he believes biosimilars have a central role to play in the US healthcare system as a whole, not just in cancer care. Patel speaks from personal experience, as he presented data at ASCO’s Quality Care symposium that found that “7% of total savings of the oncology care model came from switching to biosimilar [granulocyte colony-stimulating factor] G-CSF, [filgrastim]” in his own health system.
However, not all oncologists were in agreement about the value of biosimilars. When asked if she believes biosimilars have a role in bringing down drug costs, Kavita Patel, MD, non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said “No. I think that there are limited numbers of biosimilars, and I don’t think that the biosimilars are priced at such a degree that—when you have drugs that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars—having a biosimilar even for something with a large clinical indication, it’s like a fraction of the overall drug spend.”
Although biosimilars have the potential to bring down costs, she conceded, some factors in the marketplace need to be addressed first before they begin generating significant savings.
“I think we need more biosimilars, which the FDA has signaled, and we need more biosimilars that are priced at such a delta to make an appreciable difference,” she said. “There are some pretty ‘hot’ oncology drugs that have a biosimilar available, but then the way the practice might have already set up their pharmacy or their network, they’ve already kind of locked in to certain manufacturers, making the biosimilar less attractive.”
One specific need reiterated by each oncologist was that, in order for physicians to feel more comfortable prescribing biosimilars in their own practice, education specifically about the safety and efficacy data associated with the products is key going forward.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
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.
Similar Survival, Safety for Bevacizumab Biosimilar vs Originator in Colorectal Cancer
February 8th 2025A retrospective observational study found no significant differences in progression-free survival or safety in patients with colorectal cancers in Japan treated with ABP 215, Amgen’s bevacizumab biosimilar, or reference bevacizumab (Avastin), and estimated cost savings of 800,000 Japanese yen (approximately $5100) per patient with the biosimilar.