Health care systems need to consistently reevaluate whether the biosimilars they utilize are the most cost-effective, Neal Dave, PharmD, the executive director of pharmacy at Texas Oncology, explains.
In this interview with The Center for Biosimilars®, Neal Dave, PharmD, the executive director of pharmacy at Texas Oncology, discusses some of the issues that clinics face when prescribing biosimilars, including pricing, payer policy, and inventory challenges.
Dave says switching to biosimilars helped Texas Oncology reduce save 20% on a small group of drugs for which biosimilars were available. He mentions a pilot program at Texas Oncology where they used biosimilars for 3 drugs for 3 months. Across the board, the health system was able to save $4 million monthly.
Asked about the incentives for manufacturers to develop more oncology biosimilars amid increasing competition, Dave says that companies may have to find another way to compete rather than developing a new biosimilar for a reference product with 3 or more competitors.
However, he argues that pricing a product significantly lower in a market that already has a lot of competition is the best way to compete in such a market.
Clinics are challenged when they have to stock multiple biosimilars for the same reference product, and payers’ preferences do not always align with the clinic’s interests, he says. Although giving a patient the wrong biosimilar should not produce any clinical differences, on an administrative level, it can cause billing issues and result in additional costs for the practice. Dave says that, to help prevent these issues from occurring, clinics should be the ones to determine which biosimilars to use.
Dave reevaluates his pharmacy practices regularly because drug prices and biosimilar utilization change on a quarterly basis. These reevaluations will occur during pharmacy and therapeutics committee meetings, and those discussions are needed to figure out what can be done to improve biosimilar utilization, and consequently, cost savings.
Finally, Dave discusses the importance of clinics regularly reevaluating the prices of the biosimilars they’re using, because a biosimilar that enters the market as the most cost-efficient option may not stay that way forever. He stresses that clinics need to ensure that as prices change that they are continuing the use the most cost-effective option to prevent increasing the cost of care.
Budget Impact Analysis of Biosimilar Natalizumab in the US
Projected savings from biosimilar natalizumab were $452,611 over 3 years, driven by decreased drug acquisition costs and a utilization shift from reference to biosimilar natalizumab.
Biosimilars in America: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Impact
July 21st 2024Join us as we explore the complexities of the US biosimilars market, discussing legislative influences, payer and provider adoption factors, and strategies to overcome industry challenges with expert insights from Kyle Noonan, PharmD, MS, value & access strategy manager at Cencora.
Eye on Pharma: BI Cyltezo Partnership; Europe Ustekinumab Launch; Mexico Biosimilar Approval
July 24th 2024Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) partners with GoodRx to offer its unbranded adalimumab biosimilar to patients at an exclusive low price; a new ustekinumab biosimilar launches in Europe; and Mexican officials approve a bevacizumab biosimilar.
Biosimilars Oncology Roundup for June 2024—Podcast Edition
July 7th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we review biosimilar news coming out of June, with clinical trial results from conferences and a study showcasing how to overcome economic and noneconomic barriers to oncology biosimilars.
Real-World Study: No Increase in Health Resource Costs After Infliximab Biosimilar Introduction
July 20th 2024Although biosimilars reduce drug purchasing costs for hospitals, it’s unclear whether those savings might be offset by increased health resource utilization following a non-medical switching initiative.