CMS Ends Most Favored Nation Drug Price Model Proposal

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency has published a final rule in the Federal Register on December 27, 2021, that rescinds the November 27, 2020, MFN Model interim final rule with comment period.​​ The final rule rescinding the Most Favored Nation Model interim final rule with comment period can be found here.

Proposed Rule Background:  

CMS included the following background to the issue in its announcement:

“In the August 10, 2021 Federal Register (86 FR 43620), we published a proposed rule (86 FR 43618, hereafter, referred to as “the August 2021 proposed rule”) that would rescind the Most Favored Nation (MFN) Model interim final rule with comment period (85 FR 76180) that appeared in the November 27, 2020 Federal Register (hereafter, referred to as “the November 2020 MFN Model interim final rule”). The November 2020 MFN Model interim final rule established a 7-year nationwide, mandatory MFN Model to test an alternative way for Medicare to pay for certain Medicare Part B single source drugs and biologicals (including biosimilar biologicals), under section 1115A of the Social Security Act (the Act), with the model performance period beginning on January 1, 2021. The MFN Model was not implemented on January 1, 2021 as contemplated following four lawsuits and a nationwide preliminary injunction. On December 28, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in California Life Sciences Ass'n v. CMS, No. 3:20-cv-08603, which preliminarily enjoined HHS from implementing the MFN Model and the November 2020 interim final rule. For additional information on the MFN Model and the related lawsuits, see the August 2021 proposed rule, the November 2020 MFN Model interim final rule, and the MFN Model website.[1]”

Why does this matter?

Drug price continues to be an issue and it is essential for stakeholders to monitor how reimbursement will be for your operations. 

How Lanton Law Can Help

Lanton Law is a national healthcare and life science boutique law and government affairs firm that closely monitors legislative, regulatory and legal developments for our clients. Our life sciences practice can help stakeholders understand what’s at issue so that we can help our valued clients reach their goals. Contact us to learn about how either our legal or lobbying services can help you attain your goals.

Bipartisan Congressional Legislation Introduced Seeking Shared Savings Demo Project to Increase Biological/Biosimilar Medicare Access

U.S. Senators Cornyn (R-TX) and Bennet (D-CO) have introduced the Increasing Access to Biosimilars Act also known as S. 1427. The bill seeks to establish a demonstration project to increase access to biosimilar biological products under the Medicare program.  

According to Senator Cornyn’s press release “this legislation would direct HHS to establish a shared savings demonstration project to increase access to biosimilars in the Medicare program. This would encourage physicians to prescribe less-expensive biosimilars increasing patient access to more affordable, life-saving drugs and lowering patient out-of-pocket costs.

Under the demonstration, Medicare would provide an additional payment to providers for using lower-cost biosimilar products that reflects the savings created in contrast to administering the higher-cost reference biological product. Additionally, Medicare can use a portion of those savings to reduce the beneficiary’s coinsurance payment.”

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life science and technology. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

Biosimilar Legislation Passes Senate

S. 164 titled the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act of 2021 sponsored by Senator Hassan (D-NH) has passed the Senate on March 3, 2021. The proposed bill seeks to educate health care providers and the public on biosimilar biological products. 

Specifically, the bill states that the Secretary may maintain and operate an internet website to provide educational materials for health care providers, patients, and caregivers, regarding the meaning of the terms, and the standards for review and licensing of, biological products, including biosimilar biological products and interchangeable biosimilar biological products. 

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life science and technology. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

New Rule: Transition to BLA Pathway Is Complete

We have a new article with the Center for Biosimilars titled “New Rule: Transition to BLA Pathway is Complete.”

Click here for the article

For those having difficulty accessing the article, we have provided the text from the article below.

As of today, March 23, 2020, the life sciences industry completes “the transition.” New categories of biologics will now be licensed via the biologics approval pathway under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). 

This transition occurs 10 years after the 2009 enactment of the BPCIA. During that interim, manufacturers of certain biologics approved and under review for approval were in limbo as to how their products and rights of exclusivity would be treated under the new policy.

Now, biologics previously approved under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC) will automatically be “deemed” biologics licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS). Ultimately, these drugs will be categorized as biologics, subject to biosimilar and not generic competition.

Unfortunately, the original BPCIA statute did not provide instructions to the FDA on how to implement this change. Therefore, the FDA has taken certain steps to enact the transition via several proposed rules and the implementation of its Biosimilars Action Plan (BAP). 

The BAP was released in July 2018. The plan is in 2 sections. The first defines key areas in which the FDA wants to focus its regulatory efforts: improving clarity and efficiency of the biosimilar approval process, enhancing understanding through better public communications, and addressing anticompetitive practices.  

The second section is made up of key actions. These are steps that the FDA is either taking or planning to take to improve review processes, create information resources, upgrade guidance, and encourage public feedback. Many of these actions have already been initiated.

On February 21, 2020, the FDA released a final rule that goes into effect today. It amends the FDA’s regulatory definition of a biological product so that it is aligned with the BPCIA. “Under the final rule, the term protein means any alpha amino acid polymer with a specific defined sequence that is greater than 40 amino acids in size.” This is one of the final steps in the 10-year transition process. It opens the door for insulins to be approved via the biologics license application (BLA) pathway.  

Over 100 products that had been approved via new drug applications under the FDC now must be reviewed as BLAs under section 351 of the PHS. Drugs that will be transitioned include naturally occurring proteins such as hyaluronidase, human growth hormones, and menotropins.

The FDA is focusing on insulins and has made waves with the release of draft guidance on insulin biosimilars. The FDA indicated that switching studies may not be needed for a designation of interchangeable insulins if analytical assessments suggest high similarity between biosimilars and reference products. This could speed the arrival to market of the first interchangeable biosimilars in the United States for insulin.

The FDA has also released 2 question-and-answer documents that discuss the transition for patients and healthcare providers. With the BAP and guidance, the FDA has signaled that they are moving forward with the transition as a means of introducing more affordable medicines into the healthcare system—specifically, by expanding the use of biosimilars.
 

Pending Antitrust Actions Could Change Biosimilar Dynamics

I have a new article that was published in the Centers for Biosimilars titled Pending Antitrust Actions Could Change Biosimilar Dynamics. If you have trouble accessing the link above we have provided the article text below:

There are 3 major antitrust actions on the biosimilar scene still pending. These have a long way to go before any court resolution, unless the parties involved settle before then. One is a class-action lawsuit attacking the use of patent thickets and pay-for-delay tactics. The other is a claim alleging anticompetitive contract practices to retain market share for an originator product. Related to the latter, an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) remains in progress.

Humira (adalimumab) antitrust litigation (1:19-cv-01873)
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 filed a class-action lawsuit against AbbVie, the holder of patents for its blockbuster drug Humira, claiming a monopoly had been created by AbbVie via its use of patent thickets and pay-for-delay tactics to block less-expensive biosimilars of adalimumab and raise prices for indirect purchasers. One of the main allegations is that AbbVie amassed more than 100 patents to prevent biosimilar versions of Humira from reaching market before 2023. Another main argument is that AbbVie colluded with biosimilar makers by using financial inducements to delay the launching of competitors in the United States while allowing them in Europe. AbbVie denies using these tactics to create a monopoly and contends that the lawsuit threatens to “upend the well-settled balancebetween the patent and antitrust laws.” This case is ongoing.

Pfizer versus Johnson & Johnson (J&J; 2:17-cv-04180) 
Pfizer, the maker of the biosimilar Inflectra (infliximab), has sued J&J for alleged anticompetitive sales practices in regard to the infliximab reference product (Remicade). J&J is accused of using exclusionary contracts to keep the biosimilar out of the market. These contracts allegedly “led to the near total foreclosure of Inflectra and other infliximab biosimilars.” Bundling Remicade with other drugs in these contracts for hospitals and infusion centers was also done in order to retain market control, Pfizer alleges. Rebate penalties for payers and providers are also alleged. This case is in the discovery phase and will be well into 2020.

Walgreens/Kroger versus Johnson & Johnson (2-18-cv-02357)
Walgreens and Kroger sued J&J in 2018 for antitrust regarding its contracts with wholesale distributers purchasing Remicade which inflated its price. The case was dismissed for lack of standing or insufficient connection to and harm from the action challenged. Walgreens and Kroger appealed to the Third Circuit stating that the lower court was wrong in dismissing the case because of anti-assignment provisions between the wholesaler and the plaintiffs. The Third Circuit overturned the lower court ruling stating that the case could go forward in spite of the clause because the claim arises out of federal anti-trust law and not the contract itself. This case will now go back to the lower courts and start over from scratch. More cases like this could arise as distribution contract anti-assignment clauses are common and may have prevented many from suing in the past.

FTC Civil Investigation 

The FTC issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to J&J regarding its contracting practices for Remicade, meaning it is investigating J&J’s contracting practices with respect to the reference product. Although the CID was issued in June 2019, J&J has yet to comment on the investigation. Because the inquiry is in its early phase, it remains unclear whether the FTC will lodge an antitrust suit against J&J. They would need to determine if bundling deals and the rebate practices involved constitute antitrust practices. 

All of this litigation may take years to resolve. If the court judgements do not come down in favor of the product originators, the cases could significantly change how biologics are priced, by either eliminating rebates or forcing payers to place both biosimilar and originator products on formularies

Lanton Law Presents at New York Bar Association's 2020 Annual Meeting

Lanton Law gave a biosimilars presentation at the New York Bar Association's 2020 Annual Meeting & Expo for the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Law Section in NYC last week. This presentation discussed the biosimilars market as well as the near and long term market and policy implications for both biologic and biosimilars. Contact us for slides and additional information.

Lanton Law Quoted in New Medscape Article On Biosimilar Insulin

Lanton Law was quoted in a new Medscape article on biosimilar insulin. Click here to read the article

If you are having trouble accessing the link we have included the article for you below:

A new US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy may help get novel biosimilar insulins to market more quickly, but it will be no guarantee that the products will be significantly less expensive than branded insulins, say analysts.

The FDA recently issued new draft guidance for insulin biosimilar manufacturers.

The recommendations "may result in a more efficient development program that could ultimately bring biosimilar or interchangeable insulin products to the market more quickly," said Brett P. Giroir, MD, acting FDA commissioner, in a statement by the agency. 

"The availability of approved biosimilar and interchangeable insulin products is expected to increase access and reduce costs of insulin products," he added.

Meanwhile, the Republican leaders of the US House Energy and Commerce Committee have written to the nation's largest insurers to demand that they provide information on their involvement in the rising price of insulin.

The committee wrote to Anthem, Blue Cross Blue Shield, CVS Health, Cigna Corporation, Kaiser Permanente, and UnitedHealth Group seeking transparency on rebate programs with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs); detailed information on how they design their benefit plans and formularies; how much enrollees in high-deductible plans pay out of pocket for insulin; and whether the insurers offer patient assistance programs to help defray the cost of insulin.

"Unfortunately, even though the average net price that manufacturers are receiving for many insulin products is decreasing and PBMs are working with health plans to help reduce the cost of insulin for health plans, many Americans are facing increased out-of-pocket costs for their insulin at the pharmacy counter," the members of Congress wrote.

"Floodgates Opening": Clearer Path to Market for Biosimilar Insulins 

Analysts and one industry group applauded the FDA draft guidance, stating that it gives a much clearer picture of how products can be developed and approved.

The new guidance — which will be made final once the agency takes public comments into account — has been expected for some time. The FDA issued final guidance on interchangeability of biosimilars in May and held a public hearing specifically on interchangeability of insulin biosimilars not long after.

The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) said it was continuing to review the draft guidance but believes it reflects much of the concerns and feedback it gave the agency at the May hearing.

"We find FDA's flexibility on the implementation of statutory interchangeability requirements to be particularly positive," Christine Simmon, AAM senior vice president for policy and executive director of the Biosimilars Council told Medscape Medical News.

"This really was the floodgates opening," said Ron Lanton, III, a Washington, DC-based attorney who studies regulatory policy and has represented primarily small pharmacy chains.

"The United States is not an easy place for doing business when you're talking about biosimilars," he told Medscape Medical News.

The FDA has approved 26 biosimilars, including two insulins which, to date, have been labeled "follow-ons", Basaglar (insulin glargine, Lilly) and Admelog(insulin lispro, Sanofi), as they were brought to market under a different regulatory pathway, but are considered to be copycat or biosimilar versions of the respective branded insulin products.

The guidance "is one step forward for manufacturers" to say, "now that we know what the rules are, we can start to compete," said Lanton.

He believes the draft guidance, if ultimately adopted, will get biosimilars to market faster.

Dave Clissold, a food and drug lawyer with Washington, DC-based Hyman Phelps McNamara, which has represented biosimilar and branded insulin manufactures, also believes the policy will speed up new product development.

Also important, said Clissold, is the FDA's decision that manufacturers won't necessarily have to conduct studies that compare immunogenicity to the reference product.

That goes further than what had been expected but will be welcomed by biosimilar makers, Clissold told Medscape Medical News.

The FDA is communicating that "insulins are special biologics. They're small, they're not very complicated, we know a lot about them. There are all different types of insulins on the market right now, so we've got a ton of clinical experience with these things," he added.

Skipping those comparative studies won't be automatic, he said.

"But there is a path forward" that manufacturers can take to justify why they think they don't need to conduct what are usually costly and long studies, he explained.

Price Still a Question Mark

Clissold continued by noting that the FDA cannot dictate pricing, but ideally, "more competition will drive prices down."

"We've certainly seen that for the big blockbuster generic drugs," he said.

Lanton said that although the agency is attempting to harness competition to lower prices, that's not a given in the US market.

"We really don't know what the pharmacy benefit managers are going to do," he said.

Lanton pointed out the lack of transparency in the rebate scheme between PBMs and drug makers.

"What's going to prevent an innovator from coming in, talking to a PBM, and giving a steeper discount?" he said.

"Even if the price is lower, with the rebate still not being addressed, is that going to have an effect on anything?" Lanton wondered.

The Specialty Pharmacist's Role in Educating Patients about Biosimilars and Biologics

Ron Lanton III, Esq. of Lanton Law discusses with Specialty Pharmacy Times the specialty pharmacist's role in educating patients about biosimilars and biologics. https://www.pharmacytimes.com/news/the-specialty-pharmacists-role-in-educating-patients-about-biosimilars-and-biologics

Specialty pharmacies really can help the patient in getting the education out about biologics and biosimilar products in a number of different ways. First of all, the specialty pharmacy is very educated about what products are out on the market, and they’re in close communication with the physician. It’s also going to depend on the formulary and whether or not the pharmacy benefit manager or the carrier is actually going to carry the drug on the particular formulary. So I think if it does, I mean, obviously they don’t know everything about the patient’s formulary but they can find out that information and then see whether or not that’s good for the patient to take, as far as cost and outcomes-wise. So I think that with the specialty pharmacist being positioned in the center of everything, it’s a great position to be in for them to say, ‘Look, this is coming down. This is something I think that can help you, and let’s try and see if we can lower your costs and improve your outcome.’

The Specialty Pharmacist's Role in Educating Patients about Biosimilars and Biologics

Ron Lanton III, Esq., discusses the specialty pharmacist's role in educating patients about biosimilars and biologics on the following link: https://www.pharmacytimes.com/news/the-specialty-pharmacists-role-in-educating-patients-about-biosimilars-and-biologics

Below is the text of the interview.

Specialty pharmacies really can help the patient in getting the education out about biologics and biosimilar products in a number of different ways. First of all, the specialty pharmacy is very educated about what products are out on the market, and they’re in close communication with the physician. It’s also going to depend on the formulary and whether or not the pharmacy benefit manager or the carrier is actually going to carry the drug on the particular formulary. So I think if it does, I mean, obviously they don’t know everything about the patient’s formulary but they can find out that information and then see whether or not that’s good for the patient to take, as far as cost and outcomes-wise. So I think that with the specialty pharmacist being positioned in the center of everything, it’s a great position to be in for them to say, ‘Look, this is coming down. This is something I think that can help you, and let’s try and see if we can lower your costs and improve your outcome.’

The Challenges to Launching Biosimilars

Check out Ron Lanton’s interview with Specialty Pharmacy Times on “The Challenges to Launching Biosimilars” https://www.pharmacytimes.com/news/challenges-to-launching-biosimilars

Below we have provided the text from the interview as well:

Ron Lanton III, Esq.: Well, there are a few challenges to launching biosimilars after approved. One I can think of is litigation. So there’s been constant litigation between the biologic and the biosimilar to make sure that there is some kind of market exclusivity. So that’s the first thing. The second thing is that the biosimilars are actually fighting the patent thicket, so the biologic or innovator product is throwing up a lot of patents to keep the biosimilar off of the market, so you’re having a fight about that. I think education—so physicians, patients, they’re not really knowing too much about biosimilars and what some of these biological products are and kind of use them interchangeably because they don’t know about either/or. So I think a little bit more education is key, and I know that the FDA has been trying to put out a lot of policies recently to get more utilization out of this to drive down the cost of medication.

How Will the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement Affect Biosimilars?

This article appeared in The Center for Biosimilars.

For years we have witnessed the fierce debate over whether the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is serving the best interests of the United States. In following up on a 2016 campaign promise to renegotiate NAFTA, the new NAFTA, called the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), is currently being debated by Congress, and there are concerns as to whether the agreement will be ratified.

Since Democrats control the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, is a major factor in determining how fast this agreement moves through Congress. One of the major Democratic points of concern is how prescription drugs, namely biologics, are handled in the USMCA.

The point of contention for biologics occurs in the agreement’s exclusivity period. Biosimilar manufacturers have raised concerns about the fact that the USMCA would award biologic manufacturers 10 years of market exclusivity.

The USMCA would not change the current biologic exclusivity in the United States. According to the current US law, “With regard to protecting new biologics, a Party shall, with respect to the first marketing approval in a Party of a new pharmaceutical product that is, or contains, a biologic, provide effective market protection...for a period of at least ten years from the date of first marketing approval of that product in that Party.”

However, the USMCA would raise the exclusivity timelines in Canada and Mexico, which could impact biosimilar manufacturers operating in those markets.

Supporters argue that the exclusivity period doesn’t change existing US law, innovators need time to recoup research and development costs, and drug costs may be reduced in the United States, since subsidization would be reduced due to the expansion of biologic exclusivity in Mexico and Canada.

USMCA critics, however, argue that the Administration’s Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices featured greater biosimilar utilization, and the USMCA contradicts this goal. The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) argues in its position that the “USMCA expands the definition of biologics, doubling exclusivity for certain medicines” and “expands the scope of drug exclusivities beyond US law.” According to AAM, “All of these issues should be conformed to the US Hatch-Waxman Amendments and the Biosimilars Law [the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act].”

So where does all this leave us? Negotiations between the Democrats and the Administration’s trade czar, Robert Lighthizer, continue. Going into an election year, the USMCA could serve as political fodder. Democrats may use this to criticize the President’s foreign policy while the President could make good on his threat to invoke the 6-month notice period and withdraw from NAFTA, but that action could be risky, since the economic effects are unknown going into 2020’s election.

One thing is certain; prescription drug prices remain a potent political issue where change has been called for by the electorate. Will the USMCA’s current form be enough or will further changes be realized?