Abstract:Importance: Biologic drugs account for a growing share of US pharmaceutical spending. Competition from follow-on biosimilar products (subsequent versions that have no clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic) has led to modest reductions in US health care spending, but these savings may not translate to lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients. Objective: To investigate whether biosimilar competition is associated with lower OOP spending for patients using biologics. Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study used a national commercial claims database (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart) to identify outpatient claims for 1 of 7 clinician-administered biologics (filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, epoetin alfa, bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab) from January 2009 through March 2022. Claims by commercially insured patients younger than 65 years were included. Exposure: Year relative to first biosimilar availability and use of original or biosimilar version. Main outcomes and measures: Patients' annual OOP spending on biologics for each calendar year was determined, and OOP spending per claim between reference biologic and biosimilar versions was compared. Two-part regression models assessed for differences in OOP spending, adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics (age, sex, US Census region, health plan type, diagnosis, and place of service) and year relative to initial biosimilar entry. Results: Over 1.7 million claims from 190 364 individuals (median [IQR] age, 53 [42-59] years; 58.3% females) who used at least 1 of the 7 biologics between 2009 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Over 251 566 patient-years of observation, annual OOP costs increased before and after biosimilar availability. Two years after the start of biosimilar competition, the adjusted odds ratio of nonzero annual OOP spending was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P < .001) and average nonzero annual spending was 12% higher (95% CI, 10%-14%; P < .001) compared with the year before biosimilar competition. After biosimilars became available, claims for biosimilars were more likely than reference biologics to have nonzero OOP costs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.11-1.16]; P < .001) but had 8% lower mean nonzero OOP costs (adjusted mean ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93; P < .001). Findings varied by drug. Conclusions and relevance: Findings of this cohort study suggest that biosimilar competition was not consistently associated with lower OOP costs for commercially insured outpatients, highlighting the need for targeted policy interventions to ensure that the savings generated from biosimilar competition translate into increased affordability for patients who need biologics.

Exogenous 17β-oestradiol (E2) modifies thymus growth and regionalization in European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax.

Sustaining competition for biosimilars on the pharmacy benefit: Use it or lose it

Paucity of intellectual property rights information in the US biologics system a decade after passage of the Biosimilars Act

Extracorporeal life support in the treatment of colchicine poisoning

The Biosimilar Landscape: An Overview of Regulatory Approvals by the EMA and FDA

Biosimilar competition in European markets of TNF-alpha inhibitors: a comparative analysis of pricing, market share and utilization trends

The Path Towards a Tailored Clinical Biosimilar Development

Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Drugs After Biosimilar Competition

Biosimilar underutilization alone does not foretell a broken biologics market

Reduction of biologic pricing following biosimilar introduction: Analysis across 57 countries and regions, 2012-19

Introducing biosimilar competition for cell and gene therapy products

Withdrawal of longterm antihyperuricemic therapy in tophaceous gout.

Comparing Originator Biologics and Biosimilars: A Review of the Relevant Issues

The economic pressures for biosimilar drug use in cancer medicine

Learnings from cross-border biosimilar pricing policies in Europe

The Biosimilar Revolution: Assessing the European Union's Approach to Biosimilarity, Interchangeability, Patient Access, and Its Market Analysis

Dynamics of biological markets with multiple biosimilar competitors in the United States

Current Status of Biosimilars in Oncology

The Case for Disclosure of Biologics Manufacturing Information

Oral Manifestations and Complications of Diabetes Mellitus: A review.

Biological Therapies in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Can Biosimilars Reduce Access Inequities?