February 2022

March 2, 2022

ASBM Shares Physician Perspectives on Non-Medical Switching

 

In February, ASBM released our latest video, “Non-Medical Switching”, featuring ASBM Chairman Ralph McKibbin, MD.

 

In the video, Dr. McKibbin shares new data from ASBM’s recent survey of 401 U.S. prescribers of biologics, as well as his own observations on the controversial practice. Among the survey findings:

  • 69% of US physicians surveyed consider it “very important or critical” that patients and physicians decide the most suitable biologic to use- the originator or one of the biosimilars.
  • 67% say it’s “very important” or “critical” that they’re able to prevent a substitution they feel is inappropriate.
  • 71% agree that insurers should reimburse multiple products in a given class, including the originator drug as well as the various biosimilars.

“This kind of competition preserves choice and lowers costs”, explains Dr. McKibbin.

 

Survey data also show that U.S. physicians are confident in and comfortable prescribing biosimilars: 89% would prescribe one to a new patient, and 80% are comfortable switching a patient to a biosimilar. Third-party switching for non-medical reasons, however, raises concerns among physicians, explains McKibbin:

 

What’s at stake is who controls treatment decisions: will it be the physician and patient making a customized treatment plan based on the patient’s history? Or will it be insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers funneling all patients onto the most profitable one-size-fits-all treatment program?

View the video here. 

 

 
Save the Date: ASBM and GCCA Biosimilar Training Program

 

On May 10-11, ASBM will sponsor a Biosimilars Training Program presented by the Global Colon Cancer Association, in partnership with the World Patient Alliance. The event is open to patients from any disease state.

 

This two-day interactive program is designed to educate patients worldwide about biosimilars and equip them with the tools they need to be more effective advocates and help ensure their country’s biosimilar policies work for the patients they represent.

 

Several ASBM-affiliated representatives will be presenting at the event including:

  • Ralph McKibbin, MD, FACP, FACG, AGAF; ASBM Chairman
  • Madelaine Feldman, MD, FACR; President, Coalition of State Rheumatology Societies and Immediate Past Chair of ASBM.
  • Philip Schnieder, MS, FASHP, FFIP; Professor of Pharmacy, Ohio State University and ASBM Advisory Board Chair
  • Andrew Spiegel, Executive Director of GCCA and ASBM Steering Committee Member

Join these and other speakers to learn about the benefits, as well as the new challenges biosimilars bring for patients.

 

Topics covered will include an overview of biosimilars, non-medical switching, pharmacovigilance considerations, and physician and patient perspectives. Patient advocates from around the world will also share their biosimilar stories and advocacy strategies.
Visit the event’s Save the Date page to add to your calendar.

 

 

 
Senate Confirms Robert Califf as FDA Commissioner

 

On February 15th, the U.S. Senate confirmed Robert Califf as FDA Commissioner. The FDA had been without a permanent chief for 13 months. The vote was 50 to 46; with four Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voting against Califf and six Republicans supporting his confirmation.

 

Califf had previously served as FDA Commissioner during the final 11 months of the Obama Administration.

 

Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran drug regulator who has led the FDA since January 2021 as acting commissioner, informed staff she will stay on as principal deputy commissioner, the FDA’s No. 2 position.

 

Read about the confirmation here.

 

 
VA Study: Patients Switched to Biosimilar Infliximab More Likely to Stop Treatment

 

On February 18th, a study was published in the journal Current Medical Research and Opinion, which examined US Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA) patients who were switched from innovator infliximab to the VHA-preferred biosimilar. The study found that those who were switched from the reference product to the biosimilar were almost 3 times more likely to stop treatment and 5 times more likely to switch to another innovator biologic.

 

The study also found that 91% of the patients who stopped the biosimilar switched back to the originator product. “Reasons for discontinuation and switching are unknown,” investigators wrote in the study.

 

The study examined VHA data from January 2012 to December 2019 for adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), plaque psoriasis (PsO), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (i.e. inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]) who were treated with either innovator or biosimilar infliximab.

 

Read the full study here.

 

 

 
Study: Delivery-Device Differences Impacted Patient Acceptance of Biosimilar Switch

 

The national health plan of Iceland recently required patients on Humira (adalimumab) to switch to an adalimumab biosimilar, Imraldi, prompting negative feedback from many patients affected. The delivery device differed between the two products, and the biosimilar 

These differences contributed to about half of the patients surveyed having a negative experience with the switch, according to a study published recently in Frontiers of Medicine. 

 

 

The study was led by by Kristin Karlsdottir, PhD, MEd, of Landspitali University Hospital, and Anna I. Gunnarsdottir, PharmD, of the School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland. The study involved gathering a list of all patients treated through Landspitali University Hospital who had switched from Humira to Imraldi under the protocol and contacting them for a phone interview about their experience with the change. Of the patients contacted, 84.5% agreed to participate. The average age was 50.8 years, 53.5% were female, and 96% self-administered the drug.

 

Key findings of the study included:

  • Almost half (46.6%) found it more difficult to use the Imraldi pen than the Humira pen, while 12.5% found the Imraldi pen easier to use
  • Differences in the experiences were due to more painful insertion of the needle (62.2%) and that the insertion process was different (63.0%); however, needles on both pens are the same length and thickness
  • The authors reported that 62% of the patients did not feel any differences in grip of the 2 pens, but 23.5% of the patients thought the Imraldi grip was more difficult and 12.5% said the Humira grip was more difficult
  • By disease type, patients with IBD were most likely to report a difference with Imraldi and to report this pen was more painful, followed by patients with arthritis
  • Patients felt the needle insertion with the Imraldi pen caused a burning sensation “during and after the injection,” and some deliberatively prolonged the time between administration

Read the full study here. 

 
 

 

Missed last month’s ASBM Newsletter?

 

 

Read it Here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
UPCOMING ASBM EVENTS

 

74th INN Consultation

Geneva, Switzerland – April 5-8, 2022

 

ASBM/GCCA Biosimilars Training Program

Virtual – May 10-11, 2022

 

DIA Global Annual Meeting 2021

Chicago, Illinois – June 19-23, 2022

February 2022

March 2, 2022

ASBM Shares Physician Perspectives on Non-Medical Switching

 

In February, ASBM released our latest video, “Non-Medical Switching”, featuring ASBM Chairman Ralph McKibbin, MD.

 

In the video, Dr. McKibbin shares new data from ASBM’s recent survey of 401 U.S. prescribers of biologics, as well as his own observations on the controversial practice. Among the survey findings:

  • 69% of US physicians surveyed consider it “very important or critical” that patients and physicians decide the most suitable biologic to use- the originator or one of the biosimilars.
  • 67% say it’s “very important” or “critical” that they’re able to prevent a substitution they feel is inappropriate.
  • 71% agree that insurers should reimburse multiple products in a given class, including the originator drug as well as the various biosimilars.

“This kind of competition preserves choice and lowers costs”, explains Dr. McKibbin.

 

Survey data also show that U.S. physicians are confident in and comfortable prescribing biosimilars: 89% would prescribe one to a new patient, and 80% are comfortable switching a patient to a biosimilar. Third-party switching for non-medical reasons, however, raises concerns among physicians, explains McKibbin:

 

What’s at stake is who controls treatment decisions: will it be the physician and patient making a customized treatment plan based on the patient’s history? Or will it be insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers funneling all patients onto the most profitable one-size-fits-all treatment program?

View the video here. 

 

 
Save the Date: ASBM and GCCA Biosimilar Training Program

 

On May 10-11, ASBM will sponsor a Biosimilars Training Program presented by the Global Colon Cancer Association, in partnership with the World Patient Alliance. The event is open to patients from any disease state.

 

This two-day interactive program is designed to educate patients worldwide about biosimilars and equip them with the tools they need to be more effective advocates and help ensure their country’s biosimilar policies work for the patients they represent.

 

Several ASBM-affiliated representatives will be presenting at the event including:

  • Ralph McKibbin, MD, FACP, FACG, AGAF; ASBM Chairman
  • Madelaine Feldman, MD, FACR; President, Coalition of State Rheumatology Societies and Immediate Past Chair of ASBM.
  • Philip Schnieder, MS, FASHP, FFIP; Professor of Pharmacy, Ohio State University and ASBM Advisory Board Chair
  • Andrew Spiegel, Executive Director of GCCA and ASBM Steering Committee Member

Join these and other speakers to learn about the benefits, as well as the new challenges biosimilars bring for patients.

 

Topics covered will include an overview of biosimilars, non-medical switching, pharmacovigilance considerations, and physician and patient perspectives. Patient advocates from around the world will also share their biosimilar stories and advocacy strategies.
Visit the event’s Save the Date page to add to your calendar.

 

 

 
Senate Confirms Robert Califf as FDA Commissioner

 

On February 15th, the U.S. Senate confirmed Robert Califf as FDA Commissioner. The FDA had been without a permanent chief for 13 months. The vote was 50 to 46; with four Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voting against Califf and six Republicans supporting his confirmation.

 

Califf had previously served as FDA Commissioner during the final 11 months of the Obama Administration.

 

Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran drug regulator who has led the FDA since January 2021 as acting commissioner, informed staff she will stay on as principal deputy commissioner, the FDA’s No. 2 position.

 

Read about the confirmation here.

 

 
VA Study: Patients Switched to Biosimilar Infliximab More Likely to Stop Treatment

 

On February 18th, a study was published in the journal Current Medical Research and Opinion, which examined US Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA) patients who were switched from innovator infliximab to the VHA-preferred biosimilar. The study found that those who were switched from the reference product to the biosimilar were almost 3 times more likely to stop treatment and 5 times more likely to switch to another innovator biologic.

 

The study also found that 91% of the patients who stopped the biosimilar switched back to the originator product. “Reasons for discontinuation and switching are unknown,” investigators wrote in the study.

 

The study examined VHA data from January 2012 to December 2019 for adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), plaque psoriasis (PsO), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (i.e. inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]) who were treated with either innovator or biosimilar infliximab.

 

Read the full study here.

 

 

 
Study: Delivery-Device Differences Impacted Patient Acceptance of Biosimilar Switch

 

The national health plan of Iceland recently required patients on Humira (adalimumab) to switch to an adalimumab biosimilar, Imraldi, prompting negative feedback from many patients affected. The delivery device differed between the two products, and the biosimilar 

These differences contributed to about half of the patients surveyed having a negative experience with the switch, according to a study published recently in Frontiers of Medicine. 

 

 

The study was led by by Kristin Karlsdottir, PhD, MEd, of Landspitali University Hospital, and Anna I. Gunnarsdottir, PharmD, of the School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland. The study involved gathering a list of all patients treated through Landspitali University Hospital who had switched from Humira to Imraldi under the protocol and contacting them for a phone interview about their experience with the change. Of the patients contacted, 84.5% agreed to participate. The average age was 50.8 years, 53.5% were female, and 96% self-administered the drug.

 

Key findings of the study included:

  • Almost half (46.6%) found it more difficult to use the Imraldi pen than the Humira pen, while 12.5% found the Imraldi pen easier to use
  • Differences in the experiences were due to more painful insertion of the needle (62.2%) and that the insertion process was different (63.0%); however, needles on both pens are the same length and thickness
  • The authors reported that 62% of the patients did not feel any differences in grip of the 2 pens, but 23.5% of the patients thought the Imraldi grip was more difficult and 12.5% said the Humira grip was more difficult
  • By disease type, patients with IBD were most likely to report a difference with Imraldi and to report this pen was more painful, followed by patients with arthritis
  • Patients felt the needle insertion with the Imraldi pen caused a burning sensation “during and after the injection,” and some deliberatively prolonged the time between administration

Read the full study here. 

 
 

 

Missed last month’s ASBM Newsletter?

 

 

Read it Here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
UPCOMING ASBM EVENTS

 

74th INN Consultation

Geneva, Switzerland – April 5-8, 2022

 

ASBM/GCCA Biosimilars Training Program

Virtual – May 10-11, 2022

 

DIA Global Annual Meeting 2021

Chicago, Illinois – June 19-23, 2022

ASBM Video Shares US Physician Perspectives on Non-Medical Switching

February 28, 2022

ASBM has released our latest video, “Non-Medical Switching”, featuring ASBM Chairman Ralph McKibbin, MD.

In the video, Dr. McKibbin shares new data from ASBM’s recent survey of 401 U.S. prescribers of biologics, as well as his own observations on the controversial practice. Among the survey findings:

  • 69% of US physicians surveyed consider it “very important or critical” that patients and physicians decide the most suitable biologic to use- the originator or one of the biosimilars.
  • 67% say it’s “very important” or “critical” that they’re able to prevent a substitution they feel is inappropriate.
  • 71% agree that insurers should reimburse multiple products in a given class, including the originator drug as well as the various biosimilars.

“This kind of competition preserves choice and lowers costs”, explains Dr. Mckibbin.

Survey data also show that U.S. physicians are confident in and comfortable prescribing biosimilars: 89% would prescribe one to a new patient, and 80% are comfortable switching a patient to a biosimilar. Third-party switching for non-medical reasons, however, raise concerns among physicians, explains McKibbin:

What’s at stake is who controls treatment decisions: will it be the physician and patient making a customized treatment plan based on the patient’s history? Or will it be insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers funneling all patients onto the most profitable one-size-fits-all treatment program?

 

 

ASBM Video Shares US Physician Perspectives on Non-Medical Switching

February 28, 2022

ASBM has released our latest video, “Non-Medical Switching”, featuring ASBM Chairman Ralph McKibbin, MD.

In the video, Dr. McKibbin shares new data from ASBM’s recent survey of 401 U.S. prescribers of biologics, as well as his own observations on the controversial practice. Among the survey findings:

  • 69% of US physicians surveyed consider it “very important or critical” that patients and physicians decide the most suitable biologic to use- the originator or one of the biosimilars.
  • 67% say it’s “very important” or “critical” that they’re able to prevent a substitution they feel is inappropriate.
  • 71% agree that insurers should reimburse multiple products in a given class, including the originator drug as well as the various biosimilars.

“This kind of competition preserves choice and lowers costs”, explains Dr. Mckibbin.

Survey data also show that U.S. physicians are confident in and comfortable prescribing biosimilars: 89% would prescribe one to a new patient, and 80% are comfortable switching a patient to a biosimilar. Third-party switching for non-medical reasons, however, raise concerns among physicians, explains McKibbin:

What’s at stake is who controls treatment decisions: will it be the physician and patient making a customized treatment plan based on the patient’s history? Or will it be insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers funneling all patients onto the most profitable one-size-fits-all treatment program?

 

 

ASBM Urges Reform on Copay Accumulator Adjustments

February 10, 2022

On January 27th, ASBM joined other patient advocacy organizations and physician groups in submitting a coalition letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), urging the Department to prohibit the practice of copay accumulator adjustment policies. The coalition letter was submitted as part of the comment period on the HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2023 Proposed Rule (BPPR).

The letter was branded by the All Copays Count Coalition (ACCC), which is composed of groups serving the interests of people with chronic and serious health conditions that rely on copay assistance in various forms to make medically necessary drugs affordable.The comment letter was signed by 126 patient advocacy and physician organizations.

From the letter:

We are extremely disappointed that the proposed 2023 NBPP rule does not include any reference to copay accumulator adjustment policies, which financially benefit insurance issuers and pharmacy benefit managers while making crucial treatments unaffordable for patients. We strongly urge you to address this issue in the final rule by requiring that insurers and Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) count all copayments made by or on behalf of an enrollee toward the enrollee’s annual deductible and out-of-pocket limit. 

The proposed NBPP for 2023 seeks to refine Section 156.125 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), directly addressing the issue of discriminatory benefit design, intending to ensure that insurance plans do not discriminate against people living with chronic illness. While we support CMS’ intention to ensure that benefit design reflects clinical evidence rather than an effort to discriminate against people with high health care needs, we strongly urge CMS to also prohibit use of copay accumulator adjustment policies, which discriminate against people living with chronic illness. 

Copay accumulator adjustment policies undermine ACA protections prohibiting insurers from charging people with pre-existing conditions more than healthier enrollees. Copay assistance is generally only available for specialty or medications without a medically equivalent generic, which are used by people with serious, complex chronic illness. These policies subvert the benefit of co-pay assistance, thereby discriminating against people living with chronic conditions. 

Read the full letter here.

Read more about the Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2023 Proposed Rule here.

ASBM Urges Reform on Copay Accumulator Adjustments

February 10, 2022

On January 27th, ASBM joined other patient advocacy organizations and physician groups in submitting a coalition letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), urging the Department to prohibit the practice of copay accumulator adjustment policies. The coalition letter was submitted as part of the comment period on the HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2023 Proposed Rule (BPPR).

The letter was branded by the All Copays Count Coalition (ACCC), which is composed of groups serving the interests of people with chronic and serious health conditions that rely on copay assistance in various forms to make medically necessary drugs affordable.The comment letter was signed by 126 patient advocacy and physician organizations.

From the letter:

We are extremely disappointed that the proposed 2023 NBPP rule does not include any reference to copay accumulator adjustment policies, which financially benefit insurance issuers and pharmacy benefit managers while making crucial treatments unaffordable for patients. We strongly urge you to address this issue in the final rule by requiring that insurers and Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) count all copayments made by or on behalf of an enrollee toward the enrollee’s annual deductible and out-of-pocket limit. 

The proposed NBPP for 2023 seeks to refine Section 156.125 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), directly addressing the issue of discriminatory benefit design, intending to ensure that insurance plans do not discriminate against people living with chronic illness. While we support CMS’ intention to ensure that benefit design reflects clinical evidence rather than an effort to discriminate against people with high health care needs, we strongly urge CMS to also prohibit use of copay accumulator adjustment policies, which discriminate against people living with chronic illness. 

Copay accumulator adjustment policies undermine ACA protections prohibiting insurers from charging people with pre-existing conditions more than healthier enrollees. Copay assistance is generally only available for specialty or medications without a medically equivalent generic, which are used by people with serious, complex chronic illness. These policies subvert the benefit of co-pay assistance, thereby discriminating against people living with chronic conditions. 

Read the full letter here.

Read more about the Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2023 Proposed Rule here.

ASBM to Participate in Festival of Biologics USA 2022

February 3, 2022

From March 9-11, ASBM will participate in the Festival of Biologics USA 2022, held in San Diego, California. Two ASBM representatives will be presenting on a variety of topics, and moderating several discussion panels at the three-day conference.

On March 9th, ASBM Advisory Board Chair Philip Schneider will give a Plenary Presentation on the current biosimilars landscape, highlighting factors which are contributing to biosimilars gaining market share in the U.S.

On March 11th,  Schneider will give a presentation in the conference’s “Real World Evidence” (RWE) track entitled “Problems with pharmacovigilance programs: Opportunities for improvement.” This presentation will highlight some of the unique pharmacovigilance challenges of biosimilars, highlight areas of concern, and discuss strategies for improving biosimilar pharmacovigilance globally.

On March 11th, Schneider will moderate one of the conference’s two closing panel discussions, on “Promoting biosimilar uptake”. This discussion will examine the impact of interchangeable biosimilars on the biosimilar landscape and the role of competition in an increasingly active biosimilars pipeline.

The second closing panel discussion will be moderated by ASBM Steering Committee Member Andrew Spiegel, Executive Director of the Global Colon Cancer Association. It is entitiled “Market access dynamics and the future across different therapeutic areas” and will examine (e.g. arthritis, oncology, opthalmology, hematology, etc)

Learn more about the Festival of Biologics USA 2022 and register for the conference here. 

ASBM’s Madelaine Feldman Discusses Role of PBMs in Increasing Drug Prices

February 3, 2022

On January 25th, ASBM’s Immediate Past Chair Madelaine Feldman, MD FACR participated in a webinar entitiled “What’s the Hold-Up? Overcoming Barriers to the Use of Biosimilars,” hosted by The Center for Biosimilars. At the forum, Dr. Feldman discussed the role of payers like insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in contributing to higher drug costs.

Although there are cases where providers choose not to prescribe biosimilars, in others it may be due to physicians ultimately losing the ability to choose a therapy for their patients based on what is the lowest priced product or what is in the practice’s inventory, according to Dr. Feldman, who is president of the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations.

Savings and rebates that payers negotiate with manufacturers are often not designed to save patients money, Dr. Feldman explains, but are instead intended to increase profits for payers, who often negotiate contracts with companies to place more expensive products on formularies:

“Cost and price are 2 different things and when the middlemen talk about why we choose the lowest net costs, that actually means the highest profit. Their fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders. It’s unfortunate but it’s the truth. It is not to the health care system, it is not to patients, and it is not to providers. And anything that they can do to increase their profit involves using higher price drugs because…all of the price concessions are a percentage of the list price.”

Dr. Feldman recently testified about PBM practices testified at a public hearing of the Congressional Oversight Committee entitled “Reviewing the Role of Pharmacy Benefit Managers in Pharmaceutical Markets”, held November 17th, 2021. From Dr. Feldman’s testimony:
The out-of-pocket costs for these miraculous RA medications – as well as medications for many other serious, chronic illnesses – have risen to levels where many patients simply can no longer afford them, and that is true even for biosimilars. Clearly, something is not working the way Congress intended. That something begins with the formulary…
High drug prices are not a mere byproduct of this system; they are at the heart of its design, since a drug’s list price must be high so as to offer “headroom” for these discounts, rebates, and fees to the PBM. This creates a broken market in which competition actually raises prices. In this way, our drug pricing system is more akin to selling a house [winner = highest bidder] than building a house [winner = lowest bidder].

Learn more about Center for Biosimilars webinar here.

Read Dr. Feldman’s testimony about PBM practices here. 

ASBM’s Madelaine Feldman Discusses Role of PBMs in Increasing Drug Prices

February 3, 2022

On January 25th, ASBM’s Immediate Past Chair Madelaine Feldman, MD FACR participated in a webinar entitiled “What’s the Hold-Up? Overcoming Barriers to the Use of Biosimilars,” hosted by The Center for Biosimilars. At the forum, Dr. Feldman discussed the role of payers like insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in contributing to higher drug costs.

Although there are cases where providers choose not to prescribe biosimilars, in others it may be due to physicians ultimately losing the ability to choose a therapy for their patients based on what is the lowest priced product or what is in the practice’s inventory, according to Dr. Feldman, who is president of the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations.

Savings and rebates that payers negotiate with manufacturers are often not designed to save patients money, Dr. Feldman explains, but are instead intended to increase profits for payers, who often negotiate contracts with companies to place more expensive products on formularies:

“Cost and price are 2 different things and when the middlemen talk about why we choose the lowest net costs, that actually means the highest profit. Their fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders. It’s unfortunate but it’s the truth. It is not to the health care system, it is not to patients, and it is not to providers. And anything that they can do to increase their profit involves using higher price drugs because…all of the price concessions are a percentage of the list price.”

Dr. Feldman recently testified about PBM practices testified at a public hearing of the Congressional Oversight Committee entitled “Reviewing the Role of Pharmacy Benefit Managers in Pharmaceutical Markets”, held November 17th, 2021. From Dr. Feldman’s testimony:
The out-of-pocket costs for these miraculous RA medications – as well as medications for many other serious, chronic illnesses – have risen to levels where many patients simply can no longer afford them, and that is true even for biosimilars. Clearly, something is not working the way Congress intended. That something begins with the formulary…
High drug prices are not a mere byproduct of this system; they are at the heart of its design, since a drug’s list price must be high so as to offer “headroom” for these discounts, rebates, and fees to the PBM. This creates a broken market in which competition actually raises prices. In this way, our drug pricing system is more akin to selling a house [winner = highest bidder] than building a house [winner = lowest bidder].

Learn more about Center for Biosimilars webinar here.

Read Dr. Feldman’s testimony about PBM practices here. 

ASBM Presents at 16th Biosimilars Congregation

January 30, 2022

On December 9th, ASBM participated in the 16th Biosimilar Congregation, which focused on the Indian biosimilars market. By 2030, India is expected to become the sixth-largest market for pharmaceuticals, and has already firmly established itself in the global biopharmaceutical market. Many Indian pharmaceutical companies are preparing to step into the global biosimilars market.

ASBM was represented at the conference by Advisory Board Chair Philip Schneider, who moderated a panel on Market Access. The panel, comprised largely of representatives from Indian pharmaceutical companies, examined key challenges to gaining market access and sought to identify best practices for successfully entering tomorrow’s biosimilar market.

Topics discussed included current trends in biosimilar markets, the importance of sustainable pricing and reimbursement practices, ethical concerns, and strategies for overcoming market barriers.

A major takeaway from the discussions was that buidling confidence among physicians and patients was critical to success. To that end, panelists were strongly supportive of providing data demonstrating safety and efficacy of Indian biosimilars, including studies which showed patients may switch safely between originator products and biosimilars.

Learn more about the 16th Biosimilars Congregation here.

logo logo logo