Biosimilar competition in the United States: Statutory incentives, payers, and pharmacy benefit managers

Health Affairs

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 294-301

  Falit, Benjamin P ^a   Singh, Surya C ^b   Brennan, Troyen A ^c  

^a HARVARD RADIATION ONCOLOGY PROGRAM   (United States)

^b Specialty client solutions and trend management CVS Health   (United States)

^c CVS Caremark   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOSIMILAR AGENT; BIOLOGICAL FACTOR; GENERIC DRUG;

ARTICLE; COMPETITION; DRUG COST; DRUG MARKETING; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; PHARMACIST; PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGER; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED STATES; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ECONOMICS; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PHARMACY; PROCEDURES; REIMBURSEMENT; STANDARDS;

BIOLOGICAL FACTORS; BIOSIMILAR PHARMACEUTICALS; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUGS, GENERIC; ECONOMIC COMPETITION; HUMANS; PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; REIMBURSEMENT, INCENTIVE; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 84922722479     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0482     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. CVS/Caremark. 7 sure things to help you know where to go next with your prescription benefit [Internet]. Woonsocket (RI): CVS/Caremark; 2014 [cited 2014 Dec 12]. Available from: http://info.cvscaremark.com/insights2014/INSIGHTS%20Trend%202014-v2.pdf
2. Megerlin F, Lopert R, Taymor K, Trouvin JH. Biosimilars and the European experience: implications for the United States. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(10):1803-10
3. Grabowski H, Guha R, Salgado M. Biosimilar competition: lessons from Europe. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2014;13(2):99-100.
4. Grabowski H, Cockburn I, Long G. The market for follow-on biologics: how will it evolve? Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25(5):1291-301.
5. Grabowski H, Long G, Mortimer R. Implementation of the biosimilar pathway: economic and policy issues. Seton Hall Law Rev. 2011; 41(2):511-57.
6. Grabowski HG, Guha R, Salgado M. Regulatory and cost barriers are likely to limit biosimilar development and expected savings in the near future. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(6):1048-57.
7. Regulation of biological products, 42 U.S.C. Sect. 262(i)(2) (2013).
8. Regulation of biological products, 42 U.S.C. Sect. 262(k)(4) (2013).
9. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: biosimilars: questions and answers regarding implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 [Internet]. Washington (DC): Department of Health and Human Services; 2012 Feb [cited 2014 Dec 12]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM 273001.pdf
10. Philippidis A. Latest biosimilar guidance raises more questions. Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Biotechnology News [serial on the Internet]. 2013 Jun 26 [cited 2014 Dec 12]. Available from: http://www.genengnews.com/keywordsandtools/print/3/31768/
11. Berndt ER, Mortimer R, Bhattacharjya A, Parece A, Tuttle E. Authorized generic drugs, price competition, and consumers' welfare. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007; 26(3):790-9.
12. Regulation of biological products, 42 U.S.C. Sect. 262(l)(2)(A) (2013).
13. Regulation of biological products, 42 U.S.C. Sect. 262(i)(3) (2013).
14. Department of Health and Human Services. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; standards related to essential health benefits, actuarial value, and accreditation. Fed Regist. 2013;78(37):12847.
15. Use of average sales price payment methodology, 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1395w-3a (2013).