Healthcare Reform Gave Biotech Everything It Wanted, and More

3/24/10

(Page 2 of 2)

known as the FDA approval process.

Regular generic drugs, which are copies of synthetic chemical compounds, are often much cheaper than the original brand names. Development costs are substantially lower and there are few marketing costs for these generics. That will seldom be the case for follow-on biologic drugs, whose complexities present novel difficulties. Generic companies will have to navigate several of the normal aspects of FDA approval, such as pre-clinical data and large clinical trials. Since they are often produced in living cells, manufacturing and production processes for follow-on biologics will also present challenges, increasing development costs. It seems likely that follow-ons will also require marketing expenses not seen with normal generics.

These barriers will limit the entry of large numbers of follow-on biologics into the marketplace. However, there is one more worrisome hurdle that this legislation places in front of anybody who wants to make a follow-on biologic that could compete with an innovator’s product.

Upon application for FDA approval, the company developing the follow-on biologic has to turn over all the relevant documents to the company that owns the original reference therapeutic. Not upon approval, but upon application. To its direct competitor.

That means lawyers at multiple organizations now get to examine all the confidential data and determine whether there are any patent infringements. This seems to be much greater disclosure of confidential information than what is seen today with generic drugs.

As a former VP at a biotechnology company, I would be concerned handing all the information and data required for approval of a product over to my direct competitor before I even have it on the market. All the information is supposed to remain confidential. However, even with legal remedies, lots of damage could potentially be done. Is it worth the risk?

Perhaps I might be misreading the relevant paragraphs. If so, maybe someone could assuage my concerns.

Biotechnology companies developing reference therapeutics should be ecstatic with the legislation. They get 12 years of exclusivity for their products and a first look at any competitor who might produce a follow-on biologic.

On the flip side, companies interested in developing a follow-on biologic may be much less sanguine. They must spend a lot of money generating data for a product that cannot be sold while any market exclusivity still remains – data their direct competitor gets to examine before the follow-on biologic is even approved.

They might ask themselves, “Why not just develop an innovative biologic instead?” The costs will not be much greater, there are 12 years of exclusivity and no one but the FDA gets the data.

I guess time will tell if this legislation really produces a lot of follow-on biologics that help lower the price of drugs. But it certainly helps biotechnology companies.

Richard Gayle is the founder and president of SpreadingScience. Follow @

Single Page Currently on Page: 1 2 previous page

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

  • Pingback: My Op/Ed in Xconomy

  • Pingback: No blogging on Tuesday « A Man With A Ph.D.

  • http://www.pharmareform.com Mike Wokasch

    Near-term I believe biotech got what it wanted. But, as long as proprietary biologics remain expensive you can not underestimate the financial incentives for encouraging and helping follow-on biologics gain market approval. Hatch-Waxman demonstrated this and the ability for Congress to change its mind, like when the costs of healthcare reform become a reality 5 or so years from now.
    Mike
    http://www.pharmareform.com

  • http://www.xconomy.com/author/ltimmerman/ Luke Timmerman

    Richard—one thing I forgot to ask yesterday. What kind of impact will biotech feel from having millions of more Americans with health insurance? Doesn’t this mean that the potential customer base for expensive brand-name biologic drugs just got a lot bigger?

  • http://www.spreadingscience.com/ Richard Gayle

    Mark,

    I think the complexity of the legislation makes it hard to know just what will happen with drug pricing so, as a possible patient, I hope you are right and that follow-on biologics will drive the price of biotech drugs down.

    It is likely that the complexity of developing these drugs, and then manufacturing them, will make it difficult to offer them for a substantial savings.

    Some projections have them only being able to come in with a 20-30% reduction in the price of the biosimilar. This may not be enough of a price difference for most drugs to provide much of a competitive advantage.

    A biosimilar may not then have enough of a price break to effectively compete with a biologic that has been on the market for 12 years.

    Of course, it is not outside the realm of possibility that Congress will attack the problem of high drug costs with future legislation.

    That will be another, possibly less optimistic, story.

  • http://www.spreadingscience.com/ Richard Gayle

    Luke,

    Having millions of new people who might get access to the drugs is an obvious gain.

    A nagging question with all of this is whether there will be any change in the prescription rates for their drugs.

    For example, I have a friend with RA. The insurance company will only pay for her to get Enbrel if she fails in a response to methotrexate.

    My understanding is that there is no real medical reason for this but it is purely economic. Methotrexate costs pennies while Enbrel costs thousands.

    I don’t think Healthcare Reform is going to alter that equation.

    If it could, there would be a revolutionary change in the fortunes of many biotech companies.

    I think the effect the current legislation has on the prescription rates for biotechs will be more evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

  • http://www.xconomy.com/author/ltimmerman/ Luke Timmerman

    If the “public option” had been signed into law, you can bet there would have been howls of protest from the biotech industry. That would have given the federal government significantly more bulk-purchasing power than it already has, allowing it to negotiate for even steeper discounts.

  • http://www.spreadingscience.com Richard Gayle

    The Congress has been very careful to prevent the government from being able to set prices that way. The Medicare drug benefit passed during the Bush Adminstration made sure the US could not really negotiate lower prices.

    I just do not ever see that happening without some real changes in drug pricing worldwide.

    What I have always heard is that the US really subsidizes the lower prices in many countries by paying more. If we want to lower the prices significantly in the US, it might be necessary for new higher prices to be negotiated worldwide.

    Then you will hear some real howls ;-)

  • Pingback: I Am Biotech: Discover. Share. Discuss.

  • http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com Tom Degan

    The commentators keep reminding us that Theodore Roosevelt was the first president who tried to bring universal health care to the American people. That’s not quite true. He never really expressed the idea while he was in office. In 1912 Roosevelt had been out of office for four years when he attempted to reclaim the presidency from William Howard Taft, the man he had picked to succeed him. Once in office, Taft began to dismantle most of the progressive reforms that Teddy had put into place. When he sought the nomination once again, his campaign slogan was “a square deal for every man and every woman in the United States.” Part of the “Square Deal” was health care for all. He arrived at the convention that summer with all the delegates he needed (and then some) to seize the mantle of standard bearer. It was not to be. His party would betray the people by giving the nomination to Taft in spite of his victory. They had had enough of Theodore Roosevelt and his progressive reforms. 1912 was the year that the progressive wing of the Republican party died. He was the last great Republican president – the very last.

    A generation later TR’s distant cousin Franklin attempted to pick up the torch of universal health care. In his 1944 State of the Union address, he told the American people that his major goal for the post war world was national health insurance. Unfortunately for you and I, FDR did not live to see the war’s end. A film of that speech can be viewed in Michael Moore’s film, Capitalism: A Love Story. It’s is now out on DVD and is essential viewing.

    The new health care bill is not perfect – far from it – but as the old Chinese saying goes, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.” There will be improvements made on it down the years – there absolutely needs to be – but this is a fairly good first step. We’re on our way! The Conservatives will whine, but that’s what they do best. They’ll whine just as they whined when Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Just as they whined when Harry Truman desegregated the army in 1947, or when Franklin D. Roosevelt brought Social Security into being in 1935. They’ll whine just like they did when Woodrow Wilson tried to form the League of Nations in 1919 – or when Abraham Lincoln ended the institution of slavery in 1863! They whine a lot. Did you ever notice that?

    http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

    Tom Degan

  • DylanE

    Richard,

    Do you know if the new biosimilars legislation applies equally to biologics already on the market as it will to newly approved biologics? I can’t seem to find any mention of this and am trying to figure out what the first biologic to use the new abbreviated pathway will be.

    I’d appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

    Thanks,
    Dylan

  • http://www.spreadingscience.com/ Richard Gayle

    Dylan,

    I wondered about that also. I think that it applies to any biologic that has been approved by the FDA, even ones in the past. They each get a total of 12 years of market exclusivity from the date of approval. Thus the ones on the market today will have less than 12 more years.

    I believe that the EU has had a pathway for follow-on biologics. As I recall, some of the first were recombinant insulin therapeutics. Maybe we will see the same here.

  • Pingback: Weekly Twitter Roundup

  • DylanE

    Thanks Richard for the response. That was what I was thinking as well, but had trouble following the language in the bill. I think that generic epo was one of the first products approved in Europe as a biosimilar, I had thought that the recombinant insulins had used a different regulatory pathway…but that’s not really my area so I could certainly be wrong.

  • http://www.alfin2300.blogspot.com Alice Finkel

    No one here seems to be familiar with “Medicaid”, the form of health insurance which Obamacare will be patterned after.

    Before you spend too much time with those dollar signs in your eyes, you had better inform yourselves as to just what is going to happen.

    There is no excuse for uninformed expectations with so much riding on the outcome.

  • http://www.petrizzostrategic.com T.J. Petrizzo

    The new health care reform law also includes another provision likely of interest to early stage companies — the CURES Accelerator Network. The new law creates a $500 million fund to support research and product development activities for “high need cures”, defined as diseases or conditions for which there is little commercial incentive to develop products. The program will be operated by the NIH. Eligible grantees include research institutions, medical schools, biotechnology/pharmaceutical companies, and others.

    • A provision to speed the translation and application of promising new treatments for diseases from the laboratory bench to a patient’s bedside.

    • The provision was championed by U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).

    • CAN, as authorized, would award grants through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to biotech companies, universities, and patient advocacy groups to bridge the chasm between a basic scientific discovery and its application as a new health treatment.

    • CAN grants of up to $15 million will be used to fund clinical trials and hasten the approvals process. Many groups for lack of adequate funding have eliminated or postponed clinical trials to treat such diseases as melanoma, cervical cancer, lupus, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, atherosclerosis, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

    The law establishes CAN within the Office of the Director of NIH and authorizes grants. CAN will be overseen by a Board of diverse membership and expertise, including key stakeholders, patient advocacy organizations, and agencies outside of NIH. The bill also includes the Food and Drug Administration in the work that CAN will undertake, providing another important link between NIH and the drug approval process

  • Al Kahal

    How misleading. The “credit” of up to $1-billion does not apply to rent, labor, insurance, maintenance, or services. It seems to only cover 50% of NEW equipment that isn’t amortized. Good luck hitting the limit on that! Besides, you have to spend the money up front to qualify, which most companies doing revolutionary technology can’t afford now thanks to the flight of capital to Asia.
    The 12-year market exclusivity rewards big Pharma for their donations/support but will further squeeze out the revolutionary little guys that are developing technologies that will actually lower costs. Net result: the little guys get screwed once again as the cost of health care goes up and political corruption continues.
    Spare change anybody?

  • Subha Srinivasan

    Dear Richard,

    Thanks for sharing these details. It does appear that biotechnology companies got a sweet deal. However, all we have so far demonstrated with the Health Care Reform is that it is not an untouchable bill. In my opinion, none of what is in there has been well thought-out and can be taken too seriously. Furthermore, I seriously doubt, if innovative companies can benefit at the cost of biosimilars especially in the bill passed by the, too liberal, Obama administration.
    The only solace is that I have been proven wrong before. Let us keep our fingers croseed. Also, if one could not patent genes in future, as is emerging from the recent lawsuit against Myriad, then all these benefits would become irrelevant. Right?

    Subha

  • http://www.spreadingscience.com/ Richard Gayle

    Subha,

    Health Care Reform has become so politicized that I was afraid that whatever was going to pass would not be anywhere near the optimal solution. That has been borne out.

    But I’m an optimist (a necessary trait for any scientist). So I’m taking the current approach to innovation – get started, identify weaknesses quickly, make adjustments and reboot. America has done that in the past and I hope we can do it again.

    Perhaps by whacking at this mess we can get something resembling real health care reform. Of course, we have little choice now ;-)

    I agree that the courts may have much greater effects on the industry in the short term than the bill that just passed may ever have.

    But, as always seems to happen, the market is really great at opening up new opportunities when something like this happens. Like the Internet, it will find a way to route around this ‘damage.’

  • Pingback: Health Care Reform and OpenCongress | The Peoples People

  • Pingback: Data exclusivity for biologics: no longer a level playing-field | numedicus.co.uk

  • karun

    I think the new law requiring generic products to disclose information to the brand company relates only to patents. This has been enacted to reduce expensive patent litigations. In this process, the FOB company has to disclose all patents to the brand company and then both companies have to decide which if any of the claims are being infringed or invalidated. Then this would be adjudicated.

  • Pingback: Senate Staffer Cashes Out, Heads Back To K Street | SaviourFavor.com

  • Pingback: Contrary to Former HHS Chief’s, Tommy Thompson, Advice, Repeal ObamaCare « Equal Health Care

  • Pingback: Pharma Cos Face “Patent Cliff” as Protection Expires « IP Insider

  • http://worldundercontrol.blogspot.com New World Order

    great post but i wouldn’t trust anything that the FDA approves after they aprroved aspartame

  • Pingback: Pharma Cos Face "Patent Cliff" as Protection Expires | IP CloseUp

  • Pingback: 11 Ways to Profit From Health Care Reform - Mojoify | Mojoify

  • Pingback: 11 Ways to Profit From Health Care Reform

  • Pingback: 11 Ways to Profit From Health Care Reform | Health

  • Pingback: 11 Ways to Profit From Health Care Reform | My DIY Health

  • Pingback: Eleven Ways to Profit from Healthcare Reform « Gene Marks

  • Pingback: 11 Ways to Profit From Health Care Reform - Huffington Post

  • Pingback: 11 Ways to Profit From Health Care Reform » SMB Advice & Tips

  • Pingback: 11 Ways to Profit From Health Care Reform |

  • Pingback: 11 Ways to Profit from Health Care Reform « Gene Marks

  • Pingback: 11 Ways to Profit From Health Care Reform | Invoice Factoring at Light Speed

  • Pingback: 11 Ways to Profit From Health Care Reform – SchemaByte