PharmExec Blog

U.S. Biosimilars Under Threat?

by D’vorah Graeser, Graeser Associates International

D'Vorah Graeser

D'vorah Graeser

While the FDA continues to develop its guidance for U.S. biosimilars, including a one-day public hearing on May 11, 2012, the basic legal underpinnings of biosimilars in the U.S. may be under threat, as the Supreme Court debates the healthcare law, a large chunk of which includes provisions for biosimilars.

As background, biosimilars were discussed for many years in the U.S., but unlike Europe, no regulations were developed. As part of the health care law’s cost controlling measures and to promote biosimilars innovation in the U.S., the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (PPACA) was included in the bill. However, the act was stated to be “non-severable” from the rest of this law, meaning that if the PPACA is struck down, so is the biosimilars part of the law. That means, even if the Supreme Court does not specifically object to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, its mere inclusion in the PPACA could lead to its downfall.  As a side note, the Supreme Court does not seem to have much of an opinion on generic biologics one way or the other, with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer referring to “the biosimilar thing” during oral arguments.

This uncertainty comes at precisely the wrong time. Innovation in biologics has taken off in the U.S. The FDA reported that at least 35 requests for biosimilar pre-IND meetings were made in reference to 11 biological drugs as of February 15, 2012; as of that date, 21 pre-IND sponsor meetings were held and 9 INDs had been received. The FDA is instituting measures which are likely to further increase the popularity of this program, including providing a path to regulatory approval in the U.S. for similar biological products licensed outside the U.S.

Although the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act could be passed again as a separate law, the upcoming presidential election and campaign maneuvering are both likely prevent any real action on that particular motion. The bill will probably be swept to the side as “politicking” takes the place of “policy making.” This would be unfortunate, as the Act would clearly benefit consumers by reducing the price of biological drugs, which are typically among the most expensive on the market. The bill would also prevent originator biotech companies from enjoying a de facto “post patent” monopoly, due to the current expense and uncertainty of achieving regulatory approval for “generic” forms of these drugs.

Dr. D’vorah Graeser is the founder and CEO of Graeser Associates International (GAI), an international healthcare intellectual property firm.

Related: Biosimilars Spend to Reach $2.5 Bln by 2015: IMS

This entry was posted in Biotech, FDA, Guest Blog, IP, Legal, Regulatory, Strategy, Technology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

One Comment

  1. Chris Ohly
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    The statement that “However, the act was stated to be “non-severable” from the rest of this law, meaning that if the PPACA is struck down, so is the biosimilars part of the law,” is simply incorrect. The entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contains no severability clause. Both the Petitioners and Respondents so noted in their briefs on the merits.

    The premise being incorrect, so is the conclusion. It seems highly unlikely that the Court will strike down the entirety of the law, when so much of it has nothing to do with the “individual mandate.”

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Categories

  • Meta