Will biosimilars improve public health? Policy makers should look to that question as they sort through possible solutions, the authors say.
There are several possible solutions to encouraging the use of biosimilars in the United States, according to a newly published article in the latest issue of the AMA Journal of Ethics.
While the authors hold out hope that some combination of new policies and regulatory changes will spur increased access and lower prices, interestingly, they also propose that if all else fails, perhaps it would then be time to regulate the prices of originator biologics after a certain period of exclusivity.
A similar argument has been made this year in a series of posts in Health Affairs, where some have called for regulating biosimilars in order to lower prices and increase access.
However, the political will to implement price regulation is scarce, notes the latest discussion on the topic, and so “encouraging increased competition in the biologics market with biosimilars remains the most promising mechanism to increase access to much-needed drugs,” the authors write.
Some of their recommendations, short of price regulation, include:
Acknowledging that some patients and physicians still have concerns about biosimilars, questioning safety and effectiveness, the authors say that postmarketing studies of biosimilars will continue to be necessary to evaluate these concerns. They note, however, that, so far, studies have found no meaningful safety and efficacy differences between a biosimilar and its respective originator biologic.
Will biosimilars improve public health? Policy makers should look to that question as they sort through possible solutions, the authors say. The high cost of biologics imposes a barrier to patient access and adherence; lower prices resulting from competition will reduce overall healthcare costs and could improve medication adherence, resulting in better health outcomes.
Reference
Zhai MZ, Sarpatwari A, Kesselheim AS. Why are biosimilars not living up to their promise in the US? AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(8):E668-678. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2019.668.
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.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
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.