The Trump administration has withdrawn its proposal to block rebates and discounts given by drug makers to pharmacy benefit managers, Part D plans, and Medicaid managed care organizations.
The Trump administration has withdrawn its proposal to block rebates and discounts given by drug makers to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), Part D plans, and Medicaid managed care organizations.
The rule would have excluded rebates from safe harbor protections that currently shelter drug makers’ rebates from penalties under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and would have formed new safe harbor protections for discounts offered directly to patients, as well as fixed-fee service arrangements between drug makers and PBMs.
HHS previously said that the rule would counteract incentives behind higher list prices; currently, when a list price rises, patients who pay a percentage or all of the list price for a drug see their out-of-pocket expenses increase while PBMs reap financial rewards.
According to a report by Politico, the administration has now decided to withdraw the proposed rule, first put forward in February 2019 and championed by HHS Secretary Alex Azar, who has called the use of rebates in the United States “an absolutely silly system.” The rule reportedly faced dissent from domestic policy chief Joe Grogan and others who believed that it would be too costly to implement.
It had been expected that the rule would shake up the marketplace for biosimilars; while just 7 biosimilars have entered the US market, they have seen low levels of uptake. In at least 1 of those cases, rebates have been blamed for sluggish adoption. In 2017, Pfizer, maker of a biosimilar infliximab product (Inflectra), filed suit against Johnson & Johnson (J&J), maker of the reference infliximab (Remicade), for using the so-called “rebate trap” to block biosimilar competition for its high-selling product.
According to Pfizer’s suit, J&J threatened to withhold rebates (which often grow larger as performance metrics such as market share or volume rise, or which may be bundled together with rebates for other products) from insurers unless they agreed to exclude biosimilars from their formularies.
The now-withdrawn rule could have undercut the incentive for PBMs to favor drugs with higher rebates over drugs, like biosimilars, that have lower costs, and proponents say that it could have allowed for increased biosimilar uptake if drug makers made the decision to compete on price.
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."
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?
Eye on Pharma: Interchangeability Labels and Expanded Biosimilar Partnerships
May 29th 2025The FDA designates 2 biosimilars as interchangeable, enhancing access to treatments for inflammatory diseases and multiple sclerosis, while 2 other companies expand their biosimilar partnership to include more products.
British Columbia’s Biosimilar Policy Shows No Impact on Hospital Visits
May 28th 2025Despite a dramatic shift toward biosimilar use following British Columbia’s policy, researchers found no rise in hospital visits or complications, underscoring the real-world reliability of etanercept biosimilars in managing inflammatory arthritis.