IBJNews

Profits at center of biosimilars debate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Profits are at stake on all sides of a fierce Indiana Statehouse fight over a bill that would regulate the dispensing of generic biotech drugs.

House Bill 1315, which is scheduled for a Senate floor hearing on Monday, would require pharmacists to check with a patient’s physician before automatically substituting a generic version of a biotech drug for a brand-name version.

This kind of substitution happens all the time now with chemical drugs, such as the brand-name cholesterol drug Lipitor and its generic version atorvastatin.

One reason it does is that the makers of generic drugs and the health insurers that pay most of the bill for prescription medicines make sure pharmacists benefit financially for doing so.

Generic drugmakers would rather pay higher profits to pharmacies than run their own sales and marketing efforts to convince pharmacists to dispense generics. And health insurers, such as Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., have strongly encouraged generic substitution as a way to reduce their own spending on medical claims. Current biotech drugs, such as the cancer drug Avastin, can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for each patient per year.

The profit margins for retail pharmacists on atorvastatin, for example, are more than double what they are for branded Lipitor, according to an analysis by Philadelphia-based Pembroke Consulting.

Also, large distributors of drugs, such as Cardinal Health and McKesson Corp., make profit margins of 18 percent on generic drugs, compared with margins of just 2 percent on brand-name drugs, according to Pembroke.

The only problem for pharmacies is that the fat margins on generic drugs diminish over time. So with overall spending on prescription medicines declining in 2012 for the first time in history, drugstores are relying on a steady stream of patent expirations on brand-name drugs to keep their bottom lines healthy.

But the wave of blockbuster patent expirations will end in 2016, and after that, pharmacies need a new batch of drugs going generic. The obvious source for that new batch is the world of biotech, or specialty drugs, where several drugs' patents have already expired—but the drugs have faced no competition from generics.

The health reform law of 2010 included the first regulatory pathway to allow generic versions of biotech drugs, although the rules are still being hammered out by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Drugstores must either embrace the low-cost generic revolution or figure out how to penetrate the specialty market. Otherwise, they'll find it hard to climb out of the rabbit hole,” wrote Adam Fein, president of Pembroke Consulting, in a March 7 blog post.

But makers of brand-name drugs, such as Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co., would benefit greatly if generic biotech medicines cannot immediately steal away sales once the patents on their brand-name drugs expire.

For example, U.S. sales of Lilly’s antipsychotic drug Zyprexa plummeted 88 percent in the 12 months after the drug’s U.S. patent expired in October 2011.

By contrast, Lilly’s biotech insulin Humulin has continued to rack up annual sales of more than $1.2 billion, even though its patent expired in 2000.

Currently, biotech drugs account for only one-quarter of all U.S. sales of brand-name drugs, according to data from IMS Health, a Connecticut-based market research firm. But nearly all large pharma companies, including Lilly, have staked their futures on using biotechnology to reverse a drought of new breakthroughs.

Last year, Lilly garnered more than $5 billion in sales from biotech drugs, or about one-quarter of all its drug sales. Of the 13 drugs Lilly has in Phase 3 clinical trials, eight of them are biotech drugs.

Lilly has thrown its support behind HB 1315, which was authored by Rep. Ed Clere, R-New Albany, at the request of biotech drug pioneer Genentech Inc., which is now a subsidiary of Switzerland-based Roche Group.

The stated concern of the drug companies is that, because biotech drugs are so much more complex than traditional chemical drugs, they will not be interchangeable like chemical drugs are. In industry parlance, biotech drugs are called biologics and their generic versions are called biosimilars, because they cannot be exactly the same as the original.

Clere told The New York Times in January that his bill “doesn’t do anything to prevent or discourage the use of biosimilars.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Zyprexa legacy
    Eli Lilly did make $69 billion on Zyprexa (Olanzapine) and they still expect to capture 20% of the US market as well as a billion year on ZyprexaXR. The patent only expires in the US and some Euro,Lilly announced they have an *authorized* distributor of generic Zyprexa. I am keenly interested in how they resolve remaining Zyprexa litigation. PTSD treatment for Veterans found ineffective. Zyprexa can cause diabetes. I took Zyprexa Olanzapine a powerful Lilly schizophrenic drug for 4 years it was prescribed to me off-label for post traumatic stress disorder was ineffective costly and gave me diabetes. -- Daniel Haszard

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

  2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

  3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

  4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

  5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?

ADVERTISEMENT