Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

The market designed to create competition for biologics — typically our most expensive drugs — has been slow to take off, but some experts say that even its best-case scenario doesn't do enough to lower drug prices.

Why it matters: While wonks debate the future of biosimilars in policy journals and on editorial pages, the argument is reflected in the political divide over whether enhanced drug competition or price regulation is the best way to address drug prices.

The big picture: Congress created the pathway for biosimilars to come to market knowing that they'd look different than small-molecule generics, and even their most ardent supporters say biosimilars will never achieve the steep discounts that generics do.

  • That's because biosimilars are much harder to make than normal generics, meaning that drug companies have to charge enough to make their endeavor worthwhile.
  • Nevertheless, the Biosimilars Council says on its website that biosimilars could lead to more than $54 billion in savings over the next decade. A recent analysis by the Pacific Research Institute found that biosimilars could save $7.2 billion a year under the most optimistic modeled scenario.

Yes, but: Some experts are arguing that that's not enough, and that biosimilars aren't the best way to control biologic prices.

  • Last week, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's Peter Bach and MIT's Mark Trusheim published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal arguing that biosimilars don't produce enough savings and that the resources spent developing them would be better used to bring new, innovative drugs to market.
  • Bach and Trusheim proposed that the government instead regulate the price of older biologics after they've been on the market for a certain period of time, which they wrote could save around $50 billion a year.

The other side: Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb wrote an editorial in the WSJ yesterday in response, arguing that Congress should speed up the use and development of biosimilars instead of regulating prices.

  • "Among other dangers, [price regulation] could trigger shortages of the drugs. It would also discourage investment in manufacturing, as few drugmakers would want to produce complex drugs in perpetuity for little profit," Gottlieb writes.

The bottom line: This argument isn't just for the academics. The leading Democratic presidential candidates are also arguing for drug price regulation, a major shift left for the party.

  • "Price regulation may be a tough sell in some quarters, but it’s the best way to keep the promise of America’s extraordinary pharmaceutical industry alive," Bach and Trusheim write.

Go deeper:

Go deeper

Updated 58 mins ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

  1. Global: Total confirmed cases as of 9 p.m. ET: 31,778,331 — Total deaths: 974,436 — Total recoveries: 21,876,025Map.
  2. U.S.: Total confirmed cases as of 9 p.m. ET: 6,943,078 — Total deaths: 201,930 — Total recoveries: 2,670,256 — Total tests: 97,459,742Map.
  3. Health: CDC director says over 90% of Americans have not yet been exposed to coronavirus — Supply shortages continue to plague testing.
  4. Politics: Missouri Gov. Mike Parson tests positive for coronavirus — Poll says 51% of Republicans trust Trump on coronavirus more than the CDC.
  5. Technology: The tech solutions of 2020 may be sapping our resolve to beat the coronavirus
  6. Vaccines: Johnson & Johnson begins large phase 3 trial — The FDA plans to toughen standards.
  7. Sports: Less travel is causing the NBA to see better basketball.
  8. Future: America's halfway coronavirus response

Biden: Breonna Taylor indictment "does not answer" call for justice

Former Vice President Joe Biden. Photo: Leigh Vogel/Getty Images

Former Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday condemned the grand jury indictment of a Louisville police officer who entered Breonna Taylor's home in March in a botched drug raid that led to her death, saying in a statement the decision "does not answer" for equal justice.

The big picture: Biden called for reforms to address police use of force and no-knock warrants, while demanding a ban on chokeholds. He added that people "have a right to peacefully protest, but violence is never acceptable."

Trump refuses to commit to peaceful transfer of power if he loses

President Trump repeatedly refused to say on Wednesday whether he would commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election to Joe Biden, saying at a press briefing: "We're going to have to see what happens."

The big picture: Trump has baselessly claimed on a number of occasions that the only way he will lose the election is if it's "rigged," claiming — without evidence — that mail-in ballots will result in widespread fraud. Earlier on Wednesday, the president said he wants to quickly confirm a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg because he believes the Supreme Court may have to decide the result of the election.

Get Axios AM in your inbox

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!