Financial costs associated with monopolies on biologic medicines in Australia

Abstract

The aim of the study was to estimate the potential savings to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) in 2015-16 if biosimilar versions of selected biologic medicines (biologics) had been available and listed on the PBS. The research involved retrospective analysis of Australian Medicare expenditure data and PBS price data from 2015-16 for biologics, for which biosimilar competition may be available in future, listed on the PBS. Australian Government expenditure on biologics on the PBS and RPBS was estimated at A$2.29 billion dollars in 2015-16. If biosimilar versions of these medicines had been listed on the PBS in 2015-16, at least A$367million dollars would have been saved in PBS and RPBS subsidies. Modelling based on price decreases following listing of biosimilars on the PBS suggests that annual PBS outlays on biologics could be reduced by as much as 24% through the timely introduction of biosimilars. Biologic medicines represent a large proportion of government expenditure on pharmaceuticals. Reducing the length of monopoly protections on these medicines could generate savings of hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Biologics take up an increasing share of pharmaceutical expenditure, but no previous published studies have examined Australian Government expenditure on biologics or the potential savings from reducing the duration of monopoly protection. This paper provides new evidence about Australian Government expenditure on biologics and potential savings for selected medicines that are still subject to monopoly protection and thus are not yet subject to biosimilar competition. In 2015-16 Australian Government expenditure on biologics through the PBS and RPBS was estimated at A$2.29 billion dollars. If biosimilar versions of these medicines had been listed on the PBS at that time, at least A$367million dollars would have been saved. Reducing the duration of monopoly protection on biologic medicines could save hundreds of millions of dollars annually that could be redirected to other areas of the healthcare system.

Who is afraid of biosimilars? Openness to biosimilars in an Australian cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis

“…With several biologics reaching patent expiry and the end of exclusivity periods, there is an increasing development and adoption of biosimilar medicines, which have the potential to improve affordability and access to therapy . It is estimated that the Australian Government's annual spending of AU$2.2 billion on biologics could be decreased by up to 24% through the successful uptake of biosimilar medicines . Although the predominant focus of current literature has been on physicians' awareness and confidence of biosimilars, an effective introduction of biosimilars requires an understanding of patient attitudes of these medicines.…”

Trade and investment agreements as structural drivers for NCDs: the new public health frontier

“…Expansive intellectual property rights in trade agreements, which include extending pharmaceutical monopolies, can keep medicine prices higher for longer 21 . New biologic medicines to treat cancer and other NCDs are increasingly expensive – in 2015–16 alone Australia spent more than two billion dollars on biologics 22 . More than 367 million would have been saved if cheaper biosimilars (i.e.…”

Biosimilars are coming: ready or not

“…Apart from cost savings by virtue of their lower development costs, biosimilars can also affect the pricing of the reference biologic through competition. For example, the price of filgrastim in Australia fell by 62% (over 6 years) following the entry of three competing biosimilars into the market . Approximately half (52%) of the total PBS expenditure on filgrastims in 2015–2016 was for the biosimilar versions, indicating a substantial uptake of these biosimilars …”

“…In November 2017, the first rituximab biosimilar, Riximyo (Sandoz GmbH, Kundl, Austria), was approved by the TGA for the treatment of B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia . Of note, the PBS expenditure (as publicly disclosed) for rituximab during the 2015–2016 financial year was ~AU$270 million . Given the recent entry of the rituximab biosimilar into the Australian market, the impact of its approval on pricing can only be estimated at this stage.…”

“…To assess the real‐world impact of biosimilars that modify disease processes, it is helpful to examine biosimilars used in the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, which have existed in Australia for several years. Following TGA approval of the first infliximab biosimilar in August 2015, the price of the reference biologic decreased by 27% . Biosimilars of rituximab and other mAb may well deliver similar cost reductions to oncology treatment.…”