The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 Welfare Fund has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Johnson and Johnson in Pennsylvania’s Eastern District Court. The suit takes aim at the drug maker over its blockbuster innovator infliximab, Remicade.
The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 Welfare Fund has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson in Pennsylvania’s Eastern District Court. The suit takes aim at the drug maker over its blockbuster innovator infliximab, Remicade.
The Pharma Letter reports that the union’s benefits fund has alleged anti-competitive behavior on Johnson & Johnson’s part. The complaint claims that the drug manufacturer has engaged in exclusionary contracting that is designed to maintain a monopoly on the US infliximab marketplace. The union, which represents grocery workers in the state of New York, seeks a jury trial over the drug maker’s contracting, rebate policies, and product bundling that it alleges are designed to block insurers from reimbursing for either of the 2 available biosimilar infliximab products, Inflectra and Renflexis.
The union is the second entity to challenge the reference drug sponsor in recent days; in September, Pfizer, maker of Inflectra, filed a district court lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pfizer alleged that Johnson & Johnson has effectively denied patients access to biosimilar therapies by threatening to withhold rebates from insurers unless they agree to exclude biosimilars from their formularies. The suit claims that as many as 70% of patients who have commercial insurance coverage are unable to gain access to Inflectra due to the drug maker’s conduct.
Johnson & Johnson said in a statement concerning the Pfizer case that “Competition is doing what competition is meant to do: driving deeper discounts that will lead to overall lower costs for infliximab, including [Remicade]. We stand by our contracts.” The reference infliximab sponsor added that “Rather than demonstrating value and working to win the trust of physicians and patients, Pfizer is asking the court to protect it from having to compete.”
Additionally, the company highlighted the fact biosimilars are not generics, and not identical to reference products. It suggested that, instead, Pfizer’s Inflectra is a new medicine that has not yet proven itself before physicians, payers, or patients.
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.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Hesitancy in MENA Nations to Adopt WHO Biosimilar Guidelines Hinders Market Development
July 17th 2024The World Health Organization’s (WHO) new guidelines for biosimilar approvals aim to save time and money for manufacturers in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), but hesitancy among nations to adopt the guidelines is stifling market development of biosimilars.
BioRationality: Time to Get Rid of PBMs if Biosimilars Are to Succeed
July 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, discusses the challenges with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that plague the biosimilar industry and new legislation that attempts to reform their practices and encourage biosimilar adoption.