It looks like the end of the road for many of the court challenges to the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) provision requiring Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices. The U.S. Supreme Court denied cert May 18 to petitions brought by six biopharma companies that raised questions about the constitutionality of the negotiations. All but one of the suits involved were denied in the Third Circuit; the other one was denied in the Second Circuit, so there is no circuit split – yet.
The Sept. 4, 2015, at-risk launch of Sandoz Inc.’s Zarxio as the first biosimilar to hit the U.S. market came several months after the FDA had approved the filgrastim biosimilar due to a court battle over the requirements of the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, which laid out the rules of the road for the new class of follow-on drugs. Ten years later, biosimilar developers are still struggling with some of those rules that were drafted by Congress in an effort to balance competition with innovation in the biologics space. Insulin biosimilars may be the hardest hit.
In a verbal sparring over who can deliver the lowest drug prices in the U.S., several Senate Democrats are urging President Donald Trump to immediately release the list of second-round Medicare-negotiated drug prices, instead of doing what they characterize as “ambiguous” and “opaque” pricing deals with individual biopharma companies.
The debate around the U.S. 340B prescription drug discount program is once again heating up in court and in Congress. A day after the American Hospital Association called on the FTC and Department of Justice to investigate alleged antitrust issues with the rebate models a few drug companies have proposed, some members of Congress raised concerns Sept. 9 about how providers are abusing the program. Meanwhile, a U.S. appellate court heard arguments that same day on whether states can speak in the silence of the federal law that created the program more than 30 years ago.
Korean pharmaceutical stocks rose across the board May 13, a day after U.S. President Donald Trump signed off on the most favored nation executive order, a drug pricing policy expected to benefit biosimilar makers in the U.S., according to Celltrion Inc.
After a week of hype, the most-favored nation (MFN) drug pricing executive order (EO) U.S. President Donald Trump signed May 12 has a lot of bark but little bite, as one analyst put it. Brian Abrahams, head of global healthcare research at RBC Capital Markets LLC, said the EO is unlikely to rattle the biopharma sector, even though it lacked the certainty to completely remove the MFN overhang. “We see reason for relief and, alongside improving FDA clarity and limited tariff risk, expect biopharma to be viewed as increasingly investable,” Abrahams said.
In a blast from the past, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order April 15 to deliver on his 2016 campaign promises and strengthen or reinstate efforts of his first administration to drive down prescription drug prices. “My first term included numerous significant actions, including some of the most aggressive in recent history, to deliver lower prescription drug prices to American patients,” Trump noted in the order, which builds on many of those actions, including increased competition, re-importation, price transparency and a mandate to pass discounts through to patients.
Ill-considered government policies, pharmacy benefit manager market abuses and an unpredictable future are casting doubt on the long-term sustainability of the U.S. biosimilar market, Craig Burton, the executive director of the Biosimilars Council, told a House Ways & Means subcommittee April 8.
It’s taken nearly a decade for the U.S. FDA to go from zero to 60 in approving biosimilars. Currently, 63 biosimilars have been approved in the U.S., thanks to 18 new approvals in 2024 that stretched the number of biologics referenced by biosimilars from 14 to 17. That’s an all-time record, CDER Director Patrizia Cavazzoni said, as she released the drug center’s annual approval report for 2024.
If the maximum fair prices the U.S. CMS announced after the first round of drug price negotiations are any indication, advocates of the government price setting may be settling for short-term wins at the cost of long-term, more sustainable price reductions driven by competition.
