At a March 2, 2017, hearing of the Energy and Commerce Committee on the FDA’s Generic Drug User Fee (GDUFA) and Biosimilar User Fee (BsUFA) programs, stakeholders in industry and government regulatory agencies in the biosimilar and generic drug space agreed that both programs should be reauthorized before they expire at the end of September because of their importance in accelerating the review and approval of generic and biosimilar drugs. Both user fee programs authorize the FDA to collect fees from drug manufacturers to fund timely reviews and approvals of new generics and biosimilars. The recently unveiled fiscal year 2018 federal budget calls for doubling FDA user fees to ensure that pharma “pay for their share” in a tightened budgetary environment. The drug and device industries had recently completed user fee agreements with the FDA, having agreed upon appropriate amounts of industry fees to support needed FDA improvements.
Witnesses at the hearing included Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); Juliana Reed, immediate past president of the Biosimilars Forum; Bruce A. Leicher, president of the Biosimilars Council; Kay Holcombe, senior vice president of Science Policy, Biotechnology Industry Organization; and David Gaugh, senior vice president of Sciences and Regulatory Sciences of the Association for Accessible Medicines (formerly GPhA).
While the focus of the hearing was on the role and importance of user fees, members of the congressional committee brought up topics ranging from rising US drug prices, President Donald J.Trump’s executive order requiring the elimination of 2 federal regulations for each new regulation enacted, and the proposed government hiring freeze and its effect on the drug approval process. An important theme of the hearing was timeliness, with many questions concerning how the FDA plans to decrease review times and increase first-cycle generic approvals. Only 9% of generic drugs are approved in the first review cycle, even after the 2012 authorization of GDUFA. New pharmaceuticals, by contrast, are primarily approved in the first review cycle, and there have only been four biosimilars approved to date.
Bruce Leicher, who is also vice president and general counsel of Momenta, testified that if renewed, BsUFA II promises the release of new guidances, more industry/agency meetings, better resource planning, and new hires at FDA for biosimilar drug reviews. Leicher noted that during BsUFA II and GDUFA II negotiations last year, the industry had called for more FDA staff to encourage quicker reviews and a more reliable meeting schedule, and more transparency on how user fees were being spent by the FDA. These elements are all part of the renewed BsUFA and GDUFA programs awaiting reapproval, and are key to improving communication between the FDA and the biosimilar sponsors so that sponsors get necessary developmental information early and can make any corrections before filing for approval.
BsUFA II, it was noted, will adopt the Prescription Drug User Fee Act’s program review model, which establishes communication timelines and opportunities to discuss any developmental issues that can potentially prevent approval of the biosimilar application.
At several points in the hearing, speakers brought up their concerns about achieving the goals of BsUFA II should an FDA hiring freeze come to pass. The FDA has already experienced challenges hiring staff over the last 5 to 6 years, which is affecting review times. The hiring freeze will likely cause issues in recruiting additional staff to review biosimilars, Woodcock emphasized. These hiring problems will affect the approval of more cost-effective drugs for Americans.
Biosimilar Market Development Requires Strategic Flexibility and Global Partnerships
April 29th 2025Thriving in the evolving biosimilar market demands bold collaboration, early global partnerships, and a fresh approach to development strategies to overcome uncertainty and drive future success.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Experts Pressure Congress to Remove Roadblocks for Biosimilars
April 12th 2025Lawmakers and expert witnesses emphasized the potential of biosimilars to lower health care costs by overcoming barriers like pharmacy benefit manager practices, limited awareness, and regulatory delays to improve access and competition in chronic disease management during a recent congressional hearing.