Sandoz may be chomping at the bit to market its long-delayed pegfilgrastim biosimilar. First rejected by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016, the manufacturer of Zarxio® (filgrastim) has completed its 351(k) biosimilar resubmission for its pegylated filgrastim agent.
The FDA’s complete response letter to Sandoz required new pharmacokinetic
and pharmacodynamics data, which Sandoz has provided. According to Sandoz’s
press release, “The resubmission includes new data from a pivotal
pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) study. This was a single-dose,
three-period cross-over study comparing Sandoz pegfilgrastim with US-sourced
reference pegfilgrastim; Sandoz pegfilgrastim with EU-sourced reference
pegfilgrastim; and US with EU-sourced reference pegfilgrastim.” Branded
Ziextenzo™, this agent was approved in Europe and launched in November 2018.
Sandoz was hoping that its pegfilgrastim biosimilar would be
first to market before its 2016 set back. Several other prospective pegfilgrastim
biosimilar makers also received rejections from the FDA, including Mylan/Biocon’s
and Coherus Biosciences’ Udenyca®,
both of which are now marketed. If approved, Sandoz would be (at best) third to market.
However, of the competitors, Sandoz is the only manufacturer that can boast
both a filgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilar. Of course, Amgen produces both
Neupogen® and Neulasta®, the respective reference
A FDA decision date has not yet been announced; a decision
in the late third quarter of 2019 would be a reasonable expectation.
Besides Zarxio, Sandoz already has received approval for two other biosimilars (Hyrimoz®, a biosimilar of trastuzumab, and Erelzi®, a biosimliar of etanercept, but these two have not yet been launched because of outstanding patent litigation or settlements. Despite having received approval in the EU for its biosimilar of Rituxan®, Sandoz decided not to press for US approval after receiving a complete response letter from the FDA about a year ago.
It sounds a bit absurd, but we shouldn’t be surprised at this point: Health plans may not be satisfied if pharma companies simply dropped their drugs’ retail prices. They still want their drug rebates on top of this, says one well-known industry analyst. The pharmaceutical industry is stunned, because its members believed that the net price was the only thing that really mattered (or so they were told). It seems that payers’ addiction to rebates is even tougher to kick than originally thought.
Ronny Gal, an analyst from Sanford Bernstein, told Fierce
Pharma on February 11 that
UnitedHealthcare will be seeking “equivalent” rebates on medications,
regardless of whether a company drops its price. According to the article, UHC
executives confirmed the statement. Their logic isn’t completely crazy, but it
is problematic. The rebates, plans have argued, help minimize consumer premium
Let’s assume that this is the case: larger plans would lose
millions of dollars in revenue if their 20% rebate, for example, were exchanged
for simply a 20% decrease in wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). If the plan is
truly using this revenue to subsidize higher medical costs, then members’ premiums
would have to rise a commensurate amount.
Well, that just puts the pharmaceutical companies (and even
biosimilar makers) in a difficult position. If drug A costs $600 per month, and
to comply with the federal government’s efforts (and those of some pharmacy
benefit managers [PBMs]) to lower medication prices, they drop their price to $400
per month. Don’t scoff, the makers of the PCSK9 hypercholesterolemia drugs just
cut their WAC by 60%.
Similarly, makers of hepatitis
C virus treatments whacked their WACs by significant amounts in 2018. Assume
the manufacturer of drug A was giving the PBM a 20% (or $120 per month per
prescription) rebate to maintain co-preferred position, and the PBM shared half
that rebate with the health plan ($60 per month per prescription). Now, let’s
also assume that the pharmaceutical company refuses to add a rebate on top of
this amount. Who will make up the difference, if the health plan insists upon
it? The PBM? Don’t bet on it.
For biosimilar manufacturers, this lower price plus rebate
scenario can be very discouraging. If you agree that a biosimilar maker can
only gain access if it maintains a 25%+ discount to the reference drug
manufacturer’s WAC, then the prospect of an additional rebate puts further
price reduction pressure on their profitability. That could bolster the
argument that pharma should steer clear of the biosimilar marketplace.
We always understood that from a payer standpoint, net cost
was the primary objective. We were told many times that although it didn’t
matter as much how the number was arrived at, the health plans preferred lower
WAC as opposed to higher rebates. Now, we’re not so sure whether the rebate
trap hasn’t ensnared those health plan executives.
One of the more challenging lines of attack on high pharmaceutical pricing has been solving the “rebate trap.” Although not a singular item in the Trump administration’s Biosimilar Action Plan, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar had begun the process of reviewing how to begin the offensive against the current system of pharmaceutical rebating last summer. On January 31, HHS announced that they have a plan. An open question is how that plan will affect biosimilar access.
“We are taking action to
encourage the industry to shift away from the opaque rebate system and provide
true discounts to patients at the point of sale,” Secretary Azar told the New
What Is Known to Date
In releasing its proposed rule, HHS will seek to strip pharmaceutical rebates from the existing safe harbor legislation pertaining to public plans, such as Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and part D providers. The rule “proposes to amend the safe harbor regulation concerning discounts, which are defined as certain conduct that is protected from liability under the Federal anti-kickback statute, section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act),” according to the announcement. “The amendment would revise the discount safe harbor to explicitly exclude from the definition of a discount eligible for safe harbor protection certain reductions in price or other remuneration from a manufacturer of prescription pharmaceutical products to plan sponsors under Medicare part D, Medicaid managed care organizations as defined under section 1903(m) of the Act (Medicaid MCOs), or pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) under contract with them.” The expectation is that, although the rule would apply to federal health benefits, it would trickle down to private payers.
At the same time, HHS is proposing to establish two new safe
harbors. To encourage the passing of rebates or other discounts directly to
patients at the pharmacy counter, the first safe harbor “would protect certain
point-of-sale reductions in price on prescription pharmaceutical products.” A
second proposed move would protect “certain PBM service fees” under a safe harbor.
This alludes to the use of contracts between a PBM and manufacturer in which
the PBM receives a fixed fee in return for services that assist manufacturers
(in other words, not for services provided to payers).
The pharmaceutical rebating safe harbor would be eliminated in January 2020, if the rule is enacted as written. The public comment period began immediately and will end on March 31. It will take far less time before the stakeholders publicize their views. According to the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (a trade association representing the PBM industry), the elimination of the current safe harbor protection could create access problems. “While we are reviewing the proposed rule, we stand ready to work with the Administration to achieve our shared goal to reduce high drug costs. Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are part of the solution to high cost prescription drugs. Drug makers alone set and raise prices,” stated JC Scott, President and CEO of the Association.
association for pharmaceutical manufacturers stated that the proposal
would benefit patient access, by lowering the cost of medications like insulin.
Leveling the Playing Field for Biosimilars
The move away from drug rebates may actually create problems
for health plans, which had professed that the portion of the rebates passed
through to them from PBMs had enabled plans to subsidize care costs. Therefore,
the removal of the rebates may result in premium increases for Medicare
beneficiaries. On the other hand, HHS believes that removal of the safe harbor
could result in lower out-of-pocket costs for Medicare patients. Mr. Azar
believes these lower costs could exceed 30% for not only insulin but for drugs
to treat other chronic diseases.
As written on these pages many times in the past, the rebate
trap significantly disadvantages biosimilar manufacturers who continually fight
a battle for market access. It is at the heart of Pfizer’s lawsuit against
Janssen Biotech for the infliximab business. Stripping away the safe harbor
does not automatically improve access to biosimilars, as the manufacturers for
reference products can simply compensate by lowering their retail prices or
increasing discounts. However, it does take away the impetus for payers to
favor reference manufacturers because of the rebate revenue they receive.
In the long run, this would level the playing field for biosimilar
manufacturers, and the effect would be amplified if these rebating practices
also withered for private payers. We do know that many actions by those with
the best intentions can be subverted by unintended consequences. As an expert
in the pharmacy field once told me, if rebates are disallowed, “the PBMs will
still find a way to make their money.” Health plan premiums may rise as PBM
fees increase to compensate, and this could result in greater numbers of
uninsured overall. At least in this case, it may be more difficult to see a potential
downside for biosimilar makers.
Since the October expiration of Abbvie’s EU patent, the potential Humira savings seem to be truly mind-blowing. After implementing its contracts for adalimumab, the UK National Health Service (NHS) should save about three quarters of the $514 million (£400 million) it spends each year on this product alone.
In a fixed-budgeted system like that in the UK, the real implications of these savings become clear. According to the NHS, this additional $385 million (£300 million) will enable it to pay for 11,700 community care nurses or 19,800 treatments in patients with breast cancer.
And to earn these Humira savings, the NHS does not exclude using the originator product Humira. It has signed contracts (with large price cuts) with Abbvie, as well as with biosimilar manufacturers Amgen, Biogen, Mylan and its partner Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin, and Sandoz.
Could the US see such savings on adalimumab in 5 years? Although the competition may be fierce when the brand loses patent protection in 2023, Abbvie has created a stepped-launch scenario with its licensing agreements. Rather than a jailbreak of competition, as we are seeing in the EU with patent expiration there in October 2018, the timing of the licensing agreements may limit the drop in per-unit price, at least for the first year or so.
After that time, payers will be able to choose from all biosimilar adalimumab manufacturers, which should then drive pricing down (or rebates up) considerably, resulting in long-sought lower net costs. However, this will happen only after years of price increases by Abbvie. Abbvie has not claimed, while it is drastically slashing its price in the EU, that it will be losing money. In part, that is because its US revenues on Humira will continue to be at over $10 billion a year. Furthermore, its revenues largely reflect pure profit on the manufacturing of the product today, as its research and development costs were covered 15 years ago and ongoing marketing costs are a tiny fraction of this figure.
Despite repeated protestations in the US that healthcare resources are not unlimited, our system is not based on a fixed budget. It is not disingenuous to consider savings in the terms posed by NHS. Defining the large savings in terms of other useful expenditures give people a concrete idea of how the money can be better used. The need for savings on drug expenditures is acute in this nation, and biosimilars will eventually lead the way.
Just a few short weeks ago, Abbvie announced that it intended to rely on discounts as deep as 80% in parts of the EU to retain Humira® marketshare. One bellweather EU member country has signaled that it is signing tenders with other biosimilar adalimumab manufacturers.
The Center for Biosimilars reported an Email exchange with the Danish national tendering authority Amgros, which manages the country’s bidding system. Amgros confirmed that Abbvie did not provide the best bid for two tenders for adalimumab (covering January to March 2019 and covering April to December 2019). Five companies (including Abbvie) competed for the national tenders. Although Abbvie did not rank best for pricing, agreements were signed with all five companies.
According to the report, a spokesperson for Amgro said, “In both tenders for adalimumab 40 mg, we have entered into agreements with 5 companies—the agreements are ranked according to price. In both tenders, we have signed an agreement with Abbvie for Humira—but Humira does not have the lowest price (ie, is not the winner with the highest ranking).”
The importance of this action may extend beyond Denmark, as several European countries utilize others’ pricing decisions as a benchmark for their own. For example, the price for adalimumab in Bulgaria by policy cannot exceed that in 17 other EU countries.
Journalist Dan Stanton reported that Amgen withdrew in September from The Biosimilars Forum, based on disagreements with the remaining eight biosimilar-manufacturing members and perhaps internal conflicts within Amgen.
Founded by 11 members (Allergan, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Coherus BioSciences, EMD Serono, Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Merck and Co., Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, and Teva), 8 now remain (B-I, Coherus, Fresenius Kabi, Merck, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, and Teva).
An Amgen spokesperson told Mr. Stanton, “As one of its founding members, Amgen supports the Forum’s mission to advance biosimilars and improve access to biological medicines. Although aligned on this mission, Amgen and the Forum disagree on how best to support the establishment and growth of a vibrant US biosimilars market.”
Areas of disagreement may have arose over the need for policies to support widespread acceptance of biosimilars and innovation in originator biologics, and the types of education and how it is disseminated to support uptake.
Amgen harbors a healthy pipeline of biosimilars as well as defending its brands against biosimilar competition. Whereas its Epogen®, Neupogen®, and Neulasta® are under active assault by biosimilars, its biosimilar versions of adalimumab (Amjevita®) and bevacizumab (Avastin®) are both approved but not marketed in the US.
As was pointed out by Mr. Stanton’s report, Amgen sponsored a YouTube video that supported use of naming conventions that differentate biosimilars from reference products (against the Biosimilar Forum’s advocacy) as well as implying that biosimilar switches can result in negative outcomes. Earlier in November, Forum-member Sandoz issued a statement in support of Pfizer’s Citizen’s Petition, complaining of inaccurate and misleading statements made by makers of reference biologics.
Amgen (as well as Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim) must walk a tightrope that other biosimilar-focused manufacturers do not. To be leading innovative drug makers, they systemize their efforts to research new medicines and acquire drug discovery firms, engage in lifecycle management, and aggressively protect their intellectual property. Yet both drug makers seem committed to the biosimilar side of their pipeline and growing the value of their biosimilar enterprises.
The Biosimilars Forum, formed in 2015, is an advocacy organization, competing in the policy space with the Biosimilar Council, which has members that represent a more diverse group (Apobiologix, AmerisourceBergen, Amneal Biosciences, Axinn, Biocon, Biorasi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Lupin, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Mylan, and Sandoz). The Biosimilars Council is a division of the Association for Accessible Medicines.
Coherus Biosciences surprised many on its third-quarter earnings call late yesterday. It will rely not on a lower price than its biosimilar competitor to gain marketshare after Coherus’ Udenyca launch, but on its ability to pull through on its patient and provider services and supply chain to gain significant marketshare for its biosimilar version of Neulasta®.
This is not to imply that Coherus will not offer contracts to group purchasing organizations (GPOs), hospitals, and payers. The company intends to do so. However, the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for Udenyca® will match that of Mylan’s Fulphila®—$4,175 per vial, or a 33% discount from Amgen’s reference product. Denny Lanfear, CEO of Coherus added that the company’s contracting plans “will deliver additional value to payers.”
AWAITING HCPCS CODING
Unlike other biosimilar manufacturers, this is their first product to reach the market. Not only was manufacturing and production a priority, but company infrastructure had to be ready for launch. Although Coherus pointed out that the sales force for Coherus is fully in place, they are holding back the Udenyca launch until the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) designates a Q code for claims and billing purposes. Therefore, the goal is a Udenyca launch date of January 3, 2019.
Jim Hassard, Vice President for Marketing and Market Access, emphasized that “Our overall launch strategy goes beyond pricing, to reliable supply and services. We’re committed to world-class execution and salesforce effectiveness.” The company’s Coherus Complete, patient and provider service site, is operational, and this will include copay support for eligible patients. Mr. Hassard stated, “This price is attractive to payers without diminishing our value proposition. We can deliver significant savings to the health system versus Neulasta.”
CAN UDENYCA GRAB SOME ONPRO MARKETSHARE?
One interesting statement made during the call was the expectation that Coherus will go after some of Neulasta Onpro’s share of the market. Amgen’s on-body injector accounts for about 60% of all Neulasta utilization today, “but this growth has flattened out,” Chris Thompson, Vice President of Sales, emphasized. “We’re looking at the whole market, not just prefilled syringe market,” he said. “We think we’ll be able to sell through the Onpro market,” meaning that their pricing and services will attract some of this marketshare. In fact, Coherus executives believe that biosimilars may eventually garner nearly 70% of the pegfilgrastim market.
Coherus believes that there is pent-up demand for the biosimilar in the hospital segment today, which is why GPOs may represent promising contracting opportunities. They are seeking parity positioning at the payer and pharmacy benefit manager level.
This sounds fairly reasonable. Yet the vast majority of biosimilar consultants and payers with whom I had communicated had anticipated that Coherus would launch with at least a modest WAC discount relative to Mylan’s Fulphila. On the conference call, the investment banking participants wanting information on the Udenyca launch seemed caught off guard as well.
UDENYCA REVENUE TO SUPPORT COHERUS FOR NOW
Perhaps this strategy gives Coherus ample room for contracting while retaining a respectable net cost. Mr. Thompson said, “We’ll roll out a comprehensive contracting strategy for GPOs in the next week or two. It will be competitive and designed to win.”
It may need to be. Relying on better services and perhaps even a better supply chain (albeit one that is brand new) may not be sufficiently persuasive to hospital and payer P&T Committees. And Coherus needs to generate revenue from its sole product to feed its new sales team, new product development, and hungry investors.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced yesterday the approval of adalimumab-adaz from Sandoz. The new agent, dubbed Hyrimoz™, will not be launched in the US until 2023. The approval of Hyrimoz is the third for Sandoz (but only one, Zarxio®, is available for prescription in the US).
The FDA approval of adalimumab-adaz covered several indications, including adult Crohn’s disease, ankylosing spondylitis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis. The drug’s approval was based partly on the findings of a phase 3 clinical trial in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis, in which the biosimilar was found to be noninferior to the originator product Humira® in terms of efficacy (i.e., PASI 75 score) and safety.
Hyrimoz is the third approved adalimumab biosimilar, none of which have been marketed due to patent litigation. Abbvie has signed licensing agreements with Amgen and Samsung Bioepis to delay US launches.
HUMIRA PRICE DISCOUNT IN THE EU
This biosimilar is being marketed in the EU, competing with several others for the Humira marketshare overseas. However, signs of real competition are heating up in Europe, as Abbvie has offered a Humira price discount of as much as 80%.
According to an article published in Fierce Pharma, Abbvie is hoping to squash the biosimilar competition and prevent it from gaining valuable European experience ahead of US launches in 2023. The article cited a report by Bernstein analyst Ronny Gal, indicating that even at an 80% discount, Humira will still be profitable for Abbvie. “The objective is to defend the US market by denying the biosimilars in-market experience [in Europe] and then arguing the Europeans ‘chose’ Humira over the biosimilars for quality reasons beyond price,” according to Gal’s report.
On the other hand, this puts the biosimilar makers in a tight spot on the continent. They need to earn back their R&D costs and may be unwilling to face an immediate low-profit reality. Revenues within the EU for Humira are $4 billion. Even if it offered tenders of 80% for every member country (and they were accepted), revenues would still be in the range of $800 million. This would drastically reduce the size of the revenue slices for the European biosimilar competitors. It could be possible that some may drop out of the market, at least until the time of the US launches.
Payers have not been quick to add biosimilar infliximab to their drug coverage. Yet, biosimilar switching is the objective for most health plans and insurers who are thinking about long-term savings. Even if they do not exclude the reference product Remicade® from coverage, some health plans, like Kaiser, have been moving forward in this effort.
At the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy’s Nexus 2018 meeting in Orlando this week, two clinical pharmacy specialists from Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest described what may be a best practice in converting patients to biosimilar Inflectra®.
RELEVANCE OF BIOSIMILAR SWITCHING AT THE PLAN LEVEL
Kayla Hubrich, PharmD, emphasized the importance of patient education, and patients’ reliance on Google for research. She said, “When patients will turn to Google and type in ‘Should I switch to an infliximab biosimilar?’ the first search result they see is an ad for ‘Finely Tuned,’ a Janssen website.” This, of course, discourages the use of biosimilars.
At Kaiser Foundation Health Plans, coverage decisions are made at a national level for its 12.5 million members and implemented at the regional plan level, according to Lynsey Smith, PharmD. The health plan made Zarxio® its preferred filgrastim product in 2016, and registered 96% of all filgrastim dispensings in self-injected settings, and 100% of all clinical administrations for this biosimilar.
Obtaining that level of use means that not only treatment-naive patients were using Inflectra, but also those using Remicade in the past. Dr. Smith outlined the key steps in this conversion, starting with the providers. “For new starts,” said Dr. Smith, “the tactic was just to have the doctor choose the biosimilar” using tools incorporated into the electronic health record that encouraged them to order the preferred product. Concerning those patients needing to be converted from the reference product, Kaiser asked the prescriber to sign a ‘Therapeutic Equivalency Protocol’ agreement, which authorized the plan to make the switch. The biosimilar switching agreement was voluntary, and virtually all the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists signed. “One GI out of 20 declined to authorize the switch in patients already receiving Remicade,” she said.
Kaiser emphasized patient notification and education. A letter, signed in their doctor’s name, was sent to each patient at least 2 weeks before the conversion date, explained Dr. Smith. Clinical Pharmacy Services was enlisted to answer patients’ questions via phone and E-mail. Patients were also given informational handouts about the biosimilar switching program at their infusion center.
“During this process, the clinical pharmacists received 30 to 40 calls,” she said. “The patients’ main concerns were whether the product was going to work as well as their old drug and whether they would receive the same copay assistance as before.” Active patient outreach was not conducted after the switch was instituted. Any patients reporting issues or concerns were triaged through Clinical Pharmacy Services.
Dr. Hubrich added that infusion center pharmacists reviewed all patients scheduled for infusions one week ahead of their appointment. The infusion center confirmed that the provider signed a TEP document, that patients were sent the notification letter, and that the infliximab order changed to Inflectra. Kaiser also developed a nurses’ protocol for the biosimilar switch and worked to educate practice staff about the program.
INFLIXIMAB SWITCHING PROGRAM RESULTS
The conversation program began on May 1, 2017, with dermatologists and rheumatologists, focusing on patients who were getting their first infliximab treatment. Dr. Hubrich stated that notification letters were sent to 158 patients. Three weeks later, current patients began to be switched from Remicade to Inflectra. The GI conversion began on May 11, 2017 with treatment-naïve patients, and letters were sent to 188 adult patients (as Inflectra did not have the pediatric ulcerative colitis indication). Active therapeutic switching began in September. “The one GI who declined to sign the TEP agreement joined in 2018,” said Dr. Hubrich. This is likely because of the experience of this doctor’s peers.
A total of 22 patients (6.4%) across specialties reported adverse events, with nine being changed back to reference product (2.6%), five changed to a different medication class, four resulted in a dosage increase, one patient decided to discontinue therapy, and three continuing biosimilar infliximab treatment without any change. They did find that 12.8% of patients experienced some “nocebo” effects, despite the fact that “no statistically significant changes in effectiveness and safety were observed after a medican of four infusions in 9 months of study.”
Dr. Smith asserted that communication was critical to the success of the program, with patients and providers. The provider’s agreement to sign the TEP document was a necessary step, and was accepted by all Kaiser’s specialist providers.
It must be emphasized that Kaiser has a different magnitude of leverage over its physicians than a network plan like Aetna or CIGNA. Yet a biosimilar switching program like this could be a blueprint for other integrated health plans to move forward if they desire to move patients quickly and efficiently to biosimilar therapy.
In part two and the conclusion of this interview, Molly Burich, MS, Director, Public Policy: Biosimilars and Pipeline, speaks to Boehringer Ingelheim’s progress in Cytelzo interchangeability studies, its plans for the product in Europe in the face of several adalimumab biosimilars launches in the EU, and also the complexity inherent in CMS’s plans to move biologic agents from part B to part D coverage.
BR&R: Boehringer Ingelheim indicated that it started the study on Cytelzo interchangeability last year. What’s the progress on this effort?
Burich: The trial is continuing to progress. It’s a high bar and a big commitment. We will certainly publicize relevant information in due course.
We feel that for Cyltezo, in particular, interchangeability is an important component. It may drive switching. The study will also show a complement of clinical data around that topic. We hope to have information to share in the future. [Editor’s Note: The VOLTAIRE-X study, which will evaluate the effect of switching between Cyltezo and Humira in patients with plaque psoriasis, has an estimated primary study completion date of March 2020 and full study completion of July 2020, according to ClinicalTrials.gov]
BR&R: Speaking about Cyltezo, I have a question about the marketing floodgates being opened in the EU for adalimumab biosimilars. At least 4 are being launched in the EU after the October 16th patent expiration. Does Boehringer Ingelheim plan to join the fray?
Burich: Boehringer Ingelheim had planned to bring Cyltezo to patients in the EU. Due to the patent litigation with AbbVie in the US, we will not commercialize Cyltezo in the EU. Boehringer Ingelheim will continue all activities for our biosimilar in the United States. We are committed to making Cyltezo® available to U.S. patients as soon as possible and certainly before 2023.
PART B TO PART D TRANSITION BY CMS
BR&R: Medicare has indicated that it will move many Medicare part B drugs into part D. To what extent will this affect biosimilar access and utilization?
Burich: It is a very hot topic these days. We have some pretty significant concerns on conceptually around what it means for moving from part B to part D. The key reason revolves around the access question, including patient cost sharing.
A move from part B to plan D could mean that patient cost sharing may jump significantly. We know that part B beneficiaries have wraparound or Medigap coverage to protect them from cost sharing issues. In part D, there is not such protection. Aside from the biosimilar question, the move from part B to part D really has to be explored and discussed a lot more to understand how we can ensure that patient access is not reduced through high cost sharing. That needs to be ironed out as it applies to any part B drug before we can speculate whether this is an opportunity for a biosimilar. Time will tell what that really looks like.
Last month, CMS released the Medicare Advantage guidance allowing for step therapy for part B drugs. That could be a potential opportunity for biosimilars, if we know how some of the access concerns will be addressed. We just don’t have the full picture at this point.
BR&R: Is it possible that this move to part D might spur some payers to create biosimilar tiers? These would require lower cost sharing for patients compared with reference biologics, assuming contracts with the reference manufacturer permits it.
Burich: In my opinion, we’ll need access to more biosimilars before we see a lot of that activity. It’s hard to foresee what big benefit design changes will be coming, but it’s certainly possible. We’ll need a mature market in the US before that will happen.
BR&R: The devil is in the details with this switching issue but there’s also an access issue. Plans can make midyear formulary changes, this would then apply to biosimilars and reference drugs covered under part D.
Burich: This is an important issue. The latest guidance that we saw from CMS, which is now a couple of years old, allowed positive formulary changes. Adding the biosimilar to a formulary is always allowed mid-year. The question involves removing an originator product or changing its tier.
CMS has said that those situations would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. These rules preventing negative formulary changes midyear are there to protect patient access. It will take CMS some time to iron out what the process looks like for this type of potential formulary change midyear. For now, we’ll have to rely on CMS’s case-by-case review
BR&R: In general, payers do not consistently fund and manage self-injectable specialty drugs in the same way. In some cases, they cover these agents under the pharmacy benefits, medical benefit, or even both. Further, they can be managed under either benefit as well. However, it seems we are moving toward pharmacy management of these agents. How does this affect biosimilar access, if at all?
Burich: There will be more benefit design changes once we have a more robust biosimilar market. More specifically, when we have pharmacy benefit biosimilars.
We’ve mentioned CMS’s intention to move more of these products from part B to part D. It is possible that commercial plans will have different benefit designs and treat injectables differently than Medicare does. We want to make sure that biosimilar or not, the access piece is really at the center of those changes; it will not be beneficial to the biosimilar market if this move causes significant patient access issues (e.g., actual access to this drug or big swings in cost sharing). All of those things will be equally problematic for a biosimilar as they are for an originator, so we want to make sure we have our eye on the access component.
BR&R: Health and Human Services Secretary Azar and FDA Commissioner Gottlieb have loudly stated their desire to improve biosimilar patient and market access. The Biosimilar Action Plan was released earlier in the summer to that end. What is the one aspect of the Biosimilar Action Plan that appeals most to manufacturers like Boehringer Ingelheim?
Burich: The aspect of education, tackling both proactive education and countering misinformation is very critical from our perspective. We’d like to see more materials moving forward that focus on switching and on interchangeability. We haven’t really scratched the surface on those topics from an education standpoint.
The reality is that the FDA has an important voice and bringing validity to educational materials is so critical for patients, physicians, and health plans as well. We hope that the FDA will stand by its public commitment to release more reading materials, more videos, more web info, etc. It is especially important at this juncture; we are seeing misinformation and a lack of clarity on certain things.
IS THE BIOSIMILAR ACTION PLAN ACTIONABLE?
BR&R: One of the biggest barriers to biosimilar access is the patent thickets. The rebate trap problem is another story. What power does HHS have to clear out the patent thickets? Or is this an area that can only be addressed by Congress?
Burich: This is the most difficult part of the Action Plan, because it is unclear who can truly implement change and what change might be realistic. We have to protect true innovation that’s important to all stakeholders.
At the same time, there’s no question that patent litigation is the leading barrier to biosimilar accesss. Some makers of branded pharmaceuticals have constructed patent thickets so that they could sustain prolonged, expensive litigation against competitors, while stifling competition. Humira is the prime example: More than 15 years after the molecule was approved , no biosimilar is being marketed – in the U.S. What the answer is and which government agency can effect change has yet to be determined.
BR&R: That change won’t come quickly, in any case. Whether enacted by Congress or the Office of the Inspector General, which may have to reinterpret the safe harbor statutes, this may only first apply to the second-generation of biosimilar agents, beyond 2021 perhaps. It seems likely that this will be a very deliberate process.
Burich: I do believe Commissioner Gottlieb is thinking about both how to get more products launched in the short term and also the long-term vision of a sustainable biosimilar market. That is such an important part of the problem.
We were very happy that the FDA had their public hearing. The FDA panel asked a lot of thoughtful and probing questions to the individual speakers. We are fully supportive of the Action Plan and its individual components. If we saw all of those things come together and start to see action, including finalizing the interchangeability guidance and providing more education, the biosimilar market would be in a far better place.
BR&R: We say that biosimilar manufacturers can make their products attractive to payers, but payers need to play a positive role here. Commissioner Gottlieb has said that payers have to help in this process by taking the long-term view, by not automatically sticking with the reference product because of the rebate revenue. They have to be open to using the biosimilars and nurturing the health of the industry. Is there anything else the biosimilar manufacturer can do to convince payers to make this market viable?
Burich: Certainly, biosimilar manufacturers have to approach these payer negotiations and conversations with competitive and innovative contracting approaches. That does not just include pricing but also how do you drive volume and true savings to both payers and patients. That kind of innovative approach is necessary, because we know it’s a challenging market.
Biosimilar manufacturers have to look at the whole picture as well. That means providing targeted patient/physician services to really help ensure that the switching experience is seamless for the patient and the physician so that biosimilar utilization is not viewed as something very disruptive.