Sustaining competition for biosimilars on the pharmacy benefit: Use it or lose it.

Congress passed the Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, specifically to offer market competition as a counterweight to the rising costs of biologic medicines. As of April 15, 2024, 49 biosimilars have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 15 biologic categories. Biosimilar competition has been undeniably successful: Through 2022, biosimilars have saved the US health system $23.6 billion, without significant care disruption or reduced quality. Through 2023, adalimumab biosimilar competition has added an additional $6.5 billion to this total, primarily through greater rebates from the reference manufacturer. Despite launching at discounts as great as 85%, adalimumab biosimilars have not been given preferred formulary positioning in the vast majority of cases and have thus gained only 3% of market share through 2023, largely because of payers' and pharmacy benefit managers' preference for rebates over discounts. This situation may negatively influence future biosimilar development, posing a threat to a biosimilar pipeline that represents hundreds of billions in savings over the next 10 years.

Mapping Health Technology Assessment Agency Approaches for Biosimilar Value Assessment: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic literature review undertaken by the ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group highlighted that limited guidance exists on how to assess biosimilars value and on appropriate economic evaluation techniques. This study described current health technology assessment (HTA) agency approaches for biosimilar value assessment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 16) were carried out with HTA experts in Africa, America, Asia, Australia, and Europe to investigate current HTA practices for biosimilars. Data categorization was based on a thematic analysis approach. Findings from the qualitative data analysis were interpreted in view of relevant published literature. RESULTS: Our research suggests that in systems in which frameworks for biosimilar regulatory approval are well established, HTA agencies can accept the regulators' comparability exercise, and reimbursement decisions can generally be based on price comparisons. This approach is accepted in practice and allows streamlining of biosimilars value assessment. Nevertheless, conducting HTAs for biosimilars can be relevant when (1) the originator is not reimbursed, (2) the biosimilar marketing authorization holder seeks reimbursement for indications/populations, pharmaceutical forms, methods and routes of administration that differ with respect to the originator, and (3) a price premium is sought for a biosimilar based on an added-value claim. Further, HTA agencies' role conducting class-review updates following biosimilar availability can support greater patients' access to biologics. CONCLUSIONS: Internationally, there are differences in how national competent authorities on pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals perceive HTA's role for biosimilars. Therefore, HTA agencies are encouraged to issue clear guidance on when and how to conduct HTAs for biosimilars, and on which economic techniques to apply.

Benefit Design And Biosimilar Coverage In Medicare Part D: Evidence And Implications From Recent Reforms.

There is substantial disparity between Medicare Part D and employer-sponsored health insurance plans in the coverage of biosimilars and their reference biologics. These disparities may be due to design elements of Part D plans that encourage the adoption of more expensive biologic drugs. We undertook several analyses to illustrate the dynamics of benefit design incentives over time, compare formulary coverage in Part D plans with that of employer-sponsored plans, and study how the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 affected Part D formulary coverage. Using these analyses of Part D reforms enacted through the Bipartisan Budget Act, we discuss the implications of elements of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 that will be implemented in 2025. Biosimilar coverage increased by 23 percentage points five quarters after the Bipartisan Budget Act was implemented. We predict that the Inflation Reduction Act will also have a positive effect on biosimilar coverage. Given ample evidence of a relationship between drug coverage and utilization, our results suggest that Medicare patients and the federal government could realize substantial savings if Part D formularies resembled those of employer-sponsored plans.

Randomised clinical trial: First-line infliximab biosimilar is cost-effective compared to conventional treatment in paediatric Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Data on cost-effectiveness of first-line infliximab in paediatric patients with Crohn's disease are limited. Since biologics are increasingly prescribed and accompanied by high costs, this knowledge gap needs to be addressed. AIM: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of first-line infliximab compared to conventional treatment in children with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. METHODS: We included patients from the Top-down Infliximab Study in Kids with Crohn's disease randomised controlled trial. Children with newly diagnosed moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease were treated with azathioprine maintenance and either five induction infliximab (biosimilar) infusions or conventional induction treatment (exclusive enteral nutrition or corticosteroids). Direct healthcare consumption and costs were obtained per patient until week 104. This included data on outpatient hospital visits, hospital admissions, drug costs, endoscopies and surgeries. The primary health outcome was the odds ratio of being in clinical remission (weighted paediatric Crohn's disease activity index<12.5) during 104 weeks. RESULTS: We included 89 patients (44 in the first-line infliximab group and 45 in the conventional treatment group). Mean direct healthcare costs per patient were €36,784 for first-line infliximab treatment and €36,874 for conventional treatment over 2 years (p = 0.981). The odds ratio of first-line infliximab versus conventional treatment to be in clinical remission over 104 weeks was 1.56 (95%CI 1.03-2.35, p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: First-line infliximab treatment resulted in higher odds of being in clinical remission without being more expensive, making it the dominant strategy over conventional treatment in the first 2 years after diagnosis in children with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02517684.

A Cross-National Comparison of Biosimilars Pricing in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Italy.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilar medicines are defined as biological products highly similar to an already licensed biological product (RP). The market entry of biosimilars is expected to reduce the costs of biological treatments. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the range of differences between the prices of biosimilars and the corresponding RP for biologicals approved in four countries. METHOD: This is a cross-national comparison of pricing of biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Italy. The study examined online price databases provided by the national authorities of the investigated countries. Biosimilar price difference was calculated by subtracting the unit price of the biosimilar by the unit price of the RP, and then dividing it by the unit price of the RP. The results were presented as percentage. RESULTS: Brazil had the highest median price reduction (- 36.3%) in biosimilars price, followed by Italy (- 20.0%) and Argentina (- 18.6%). All the biosimilars in Italy were priced below the RP presenting a minimum reduction of 6.3%, while in Australia, most of the prices of biosimilars were equal to the RP. In Argentina, one infliximab-biosimilar displayed price above the RP (40.7%) while the lower priced brand had a reduction of 14.4%. Brazil had four biosimilars with prices above the respective RP, including isophane insulin (1), insulin glargine (1) and somatropin (2). CONCLUSION: The study revealed a marked dispersion in the price's differences between biosimilars and RP across the studied countries. Governments should evaluate whether their policies have been successful in improving affordability of biological therapies.

The use of the biosimilar drug can lead to large health care savings that can be reinvested for continued innovation: Analysis of consumption of an Italian health care company.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilar drugs offer an opportunity for all global healthcare systems because they provide significant cost savings while ensuring equal efficacy and safety in the treatment of chronic diseases. These savings can be allocated to support ongoing innovation. METHODS: An analysis of the usage of major biosimilar drugs across various therapeutic areas has been conducted within an Italian healthcare company serving a population of over one million. Data on consumption, expenditure, and the number of treated patients has been extracted from the company's databases. Finally, a comparison with the year 2021 has been performed to determine if biosimilar drug usage increased in 2022. RESULTS: In 2022, the data reveals that a substantial portion of the analysed active ingredients are being used as biosimilar drugs, except in a few residual cases. However, among the most consumed drugs, resistance still exists in the case of Adalimumab and Etanercept, for which expenditure on originator drugs exceeds 2 million euros. CONCLUSION: The 2022-2021 comparison highlights the increasing use of biosimilar drugs. This data is encouraging and suggests that in the coming months, we may achieve total utilization, which would be to the benefit of the National Health System (NHS) and the citizens who can rely on an efficient and sustainable healthcare policy that is continually improving.

Can Endangered Biosimilar Markets be Rescued? The Need to Bridge Competing Interests for Long-Term Gain.

Market signals such as: (1) the limited number of biosimilars in the development pipeline, (2) the focus of biosimilar development on high-profit therapeutic areas only, and (3) the increase in the number of biosimilar discontinuations and withdrawals, are indicative of sustainability threats facing biosimilar markets in Europe. Two prominent factors that undermine sustainability are: competing interests between the various stakeholders and a preferential focus on short-term gains, disregarding future sustainability threats, hence the need for effective policies that create sustainable competition in biologic markets. Thus far, measures implemented to foster biosimilar adoption have not been necessarily complied with and have had mixed success. Further, these policies have not consistently led to improving access to affordable biologics. In this commentary, we aim to raise awareness of vulnerabilities of biosimilar markets and of difficulties relating to reaching an agreement on policy solutions with a long-term vision. We propose to build on knowledge from collective action theory to advance in reconciling stakeholder interests. This first-of-its-kind approach can inform long-term solutions for biosimilar markets.

Access to biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors for treatment of rheumatic diseases in the biosimilars era in Poland: a nation-level study.

INTRODUCTION: By reducing treatment costs, biosimilars provide an opportunity to improve accessibility to highly effective drugs. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate access to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) among patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases within a 10 year timeframe in Poland. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis using a nationwide public payer database. RESULTS: By 2022, 11 102, 6602, and 4400 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were treated with bDMARDs or JAKis. Peak drug utilization was observed for adalimumab, followed by etanercept and tocilizumab. Within the study timeframe, the estimated access to innovative drugs increased from 0.8%, 1.4%, and 0.8% to 3.2%, 8.7%, and 3.5% for RA, PsA, and axSpA patients, respectively. Affordable tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) still predominate among innovative therapeutics, but their market share declined from 87% to 46%. The number of patients treated with other bDMARDs/JAKis almost doubled within the prespecified timeframe. Overall, the average annual treatment cost per patient decreased by 60%, from 7315 EUR to 2886 EUR. Despite recent safety warnings, JAKis appear to be increasingly utilized. Additional analyses regarding the COVID­19 pandemic showed impaired access to intravenous therapies, but not subcutaneous or oral formulations. CONCLUSIONS: In Poland, biosimilars­related savings improved availability of higher­priced innovative drugs rather than less costly TNFis. Data­driven resource allocation and dedicated policy solutions facilitating access to affordable biologics are recommended.

The Pharmaceutical Market for Biological Products in Latin America: A Comprehensive Analysis of Regional Sales Data.

The global market for biologics and biosimilar pharmaceutical products is experiencing rapid expansion, primarily driven by the continuous discovery of new molecules. However, information regarding Latin America's biological market remains limited.

The Role Of Financial Incentives In Biosimilar Uptake In Medicare: Evidence From The 340B Program.

Biosimilar drugs-lower-cost alternatives to expensive biologic drugs-have the potential to slow the growth of US drug spending. However, rates of biosimilar uptake have varied across hospital outpatient providers. We investigated whether the 340B Drug Pricing Program, which offers eligible hospitals substantial discounts on drug purchases, inhibits biosimilar uptake. Almost one-third of US hospitals participate in the 340B program. Using a regression discontinuity design and two high-volume biologics with biosimilar competitors, filgrastim and infliximab, we estimated that 340B program eligibility was associated with a 22.9-percentage-point reduction in biosimilar adoption. In addition, 340B program eligibility was associated with 13.3 more biologic administrations annually per hospital and $17,919 more biologic revenue per hospital. Our findings suggest that the program inhibited biosimilar uptake, possibly as a result of financial incentives making reference drugs more profitable than biosimilar medications.

Expanded access to anticancer treatments from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv in US breast cancer patients.

Aim: To estimate cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to AC (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) and TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab) in breast cancer (BC) patients. Methods: Simulation modeling in panels of 20,000 BC and 5000 HER2+ (HER2+ BC) patients, varying treatment duration (one-six cycles) and conversion rates (10-100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional AC and TCH treatment that could be provided. Results: In 20,000 patients, cost-savings of $1,083 per-patient per-cycle translate to $21,652,064 (one cycle) to $129,912,397 (six cycles). Savings range from $5,413,016 to $32,478,097, respectively, in the 5000-patient HER2+ BC panel. Conclusion: Conversion to pegfilgrastim-cbqv could save up to $130 million and provide more than 220,000 additional cycles of antineoplastic treatment on a budget-neutral basis to BC patients.

Lay abstract Pegfilgrastim is used to prevent low white blood cell count in patients receiving chemotherapy. Comparable to a generic version of a drug, a biosimilar is a follow-on version of a biologic treatment. We calculated the savings from using biosimilar pegfilgrastim in a hypothetical group of 20,000 patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy with AC (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide). We then computed the number of additional doses of AC chemotherapy that could be purchased with those savings. We did the same for a group of 5000 HER2+ breast cancer patients treated with TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab). Using biosimilar pegfilgrastim could save $1,083 per patient per cycle. If all patients were treated with biosimilar pegfilgrastim over six cycles, $129.9 million could be saved in the AC group and $32.5 million in the TCH group. This could provide 220,468 additional AC doses and 6981 TCH doses. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim can generate significant savings. These savings can be used to provide additional patients with chemotherapy cost-free.

The impact of biosimilar insulins on the diabetes landscape.

The cost of diabetes care in the United States continues to rise, with insulin costs growing rapidly. Accessibility and affordability of these life-saving medications are concerns for providers and patients that need to be addressed. Availability of biosimilar insulin products may help address these issues by introducing additional competition to the insulin market, but they may also face adoption challenges from patients and health care providers alike. In addition, policymakers at state and federal levels are examining and addressing rising insulin costs through legislative and administrative actions. The purpose of this paper is to review the current US diabetes landscape, highlight the differences between biosimilar insulins and follow-on insulins and considerations for successful adoption of biosimilar insulins, and review the current policy landscape regarding rising insulin costs. DISCLOSURES: This Viewpoints article was supported by Sandoz, Inc. Wagner and Patel are employees of Sandoz, Inc. White was employed by Sandoz, Inc., at the time of this study.

Projected impact of biosimilar substitution policies on drug use and costs in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several Canadian provinces have introduced reimbursement policies mandating substitution of innovator biologics with lower-cost biosimilars. We estimated the number of patients affected and cost implications if such policy changes were to be implemented in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional time series analysis of Ontarians dispensed publicly funded biologics indicated for inflammatory diseases (rheumatic conditions, inflammatory bowel disease: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab) between January 2018 and December 2019, and forecasted trends to Dec. 31, 2020. The primary source of data was pharmacy claims data for all biologics reimbursed by the public drug program. We modelled the number of patients affected and government expenditures (in nominal Canadian dollars) of several biosimilar policy options, including mandatory nonmedical biosimilar substitution, substitution in new users, introduction of a biosimilar for adalimumab, and price negotiations. In a secondary analysis, we included insulin glargine. RESULTS: In 2018, 14 089 individuals were prescribed a publicly funded biologic for inflammatory diseases. A mandatory nonmedical biosimilar substitution would potentially have affected 7209 patients and saved $238.6 million from 2018 to 2020. A new-user substitution would have affected 757 patients and saved $34.2 million. If an adalimumab biosimilar were to become available, 12 928 patients would be affected by a mandatory nonmedical substitution and the 3-year savings would increase to $645.9 million (all biosimilars priced at 25% of innovator biologics). Finally, an expanded nonmedical substitution policy including insulin glargine would affect 115 895 patients and save $288.7 million (not including adalimumab). INTERPRETATION: Policies designed to curb rising costs of biologics can have substantially different effects on patients and government expenditures. Such analyses warrant careful consideration of the balance between cost savings and effects on patients.

Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel. RESULTS: Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.

Greater uptake, an alternative reimbursement methodology needed to realize cost-saving potential of oncology biosimilars in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Biologics are an important treatment option for solid tumors and hematological malignancies but are a primary driver of health care spending growth. The United States has yet to realize the promise of reduced costs via biosimilars because of slow uptake, partially resulting from commercial payer reimbursement models that create economic incentives favoring the prescribing of reference biologics. OBJECTIVE: To examine the economic feasibility of an alternative reimbursement methodology that prospectively shares savings across commercial payers and providers to shift economic incentives in favor of lower-cost oncology biosimilars. METHODS: Using 3 oncology monoclonal antibody drugs (trastuzumab, bevacizumab, and rituximab) as examples, we developed an alternative reimbursement model that would offer an additional per unit payment (or "extra consideration") such that providers' net income per unit for biosimilars and reference biologics become equal. Provider-negotiated rates (or payer-allowable amounts) and average sales prices were obtained from claims data and projected to develop prices/costs from 2021 through 2025. Scenario analyses by varying key model assumptions were performed. RESULTS: The alternative reimbursement model achieved 1-year and 5-year payer savings in the commercial market for all 3 drugs in the sites of service analyzed. The base analysis showed first-year cost savings to payers, net of cost sharing, of up to 9% in physician offices (POs) and up to 1% in non-340B hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) for patients using the drugs analyzed. Five-year cumulative savings per patient ranged from about $12,600-$16,100 in PO and $2,200-$4,100 in HOPD. Payer savings varied depending on the characteristics of the provider with which the payer was negotiating (eg, lower- vs highermarkup providers, POs vs HOPDs). CONCLUSIONS: Positive payer savings shown in our modeling suggest that an alternative reimbursement arrangement could facilitate an economic compromise wherein commercial payers can save on biosimilars while providers' incomes are preserved. DISCLOSURES: Research funding was provided by Pfizer Inc. Yang and Shelbaya are employees of Pfizer Inc. and own Pfizer stock. Carioto, Pyenson, Smith, Jacobson, and Pittinger are employees of Milliman Inc., which received research funding from Pfizer Inc., for work on this study. Milliman, Inc., provides actuarial and other professional services to organizations throughout the healthcare industry. None of these are contingent, equity or investment relationships.

Overcoming barriers to biosimilar adoption: real-world perspectives from a national payer and provider initiative.

In response to a published national payer survey indicating striking needs for multistakeholder initiatives to increase biosimilar adoption, a focus workgroup meeting joining payers and providers was conducted in December 2019 in Boston, MA. Before the focus group meeting, a survey was sent to health care providers to collect perceptions about barriers to biosimilar adoption and gather input on best potential strategies for addressing these barriers. The focus group panel consisted of 5 managed care pharmacists and 3 physician experts in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology, representing large managed care organizations and health care systems in the Boston area. A clinical moderator facilitated discussions between the payers and providers regarding challenges to biosimilar adoption and potential collaborative strategies to overcome these barriers. The focus group participants identified hurdles to biosimilar adoption in 3 major areas: (1) the lack of confidence in biosimilar interchangeability and a need for education about biosimilars, (2) the lack of financial incentives to switch to biosimilars from the reference biologic product, and (3) administrative burdens that impair the prescription of biologics. Learning from their mutual experiences, the focus group participants formulated action plans to address these barriers. The top strategies recommended by the participants included advancing biosimilar education, facilitating administrative processes related to biosimilar prescriptions, and increasing provider reimbursement while reducing cost sharing to patients receiving biosimilars. DISCLOSURES: The study reported on in this article was part of a continuing education program funded by an independent educational grant that was awarded by Sandoz Inc., a Novartis Division, to PRIME Education, LLC. The grantor had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) received grant funding from PRIME to assist with participant recruitment and content review for the continuing education program. Bandekar, Cheifetz, Edgar, Helfgott, Hoye-Simek, Liu, and Smith received an honorarium from PRIME for serving as faculty for the continuing education program. Cheifetz has received research grants from Inform Diagnostics and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bacainn, BMS, Grifols, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus, Samsung, and Takeda unrelated to this work. Smith has received consulting fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, has served as an investigator on industry-initiated trials for AbbVie and Pfizer, and has served as an investigator on investigator-initiated trials for Novartis and Regeneron. Carter, Fajardo, and Simone have nothing to disclose.