IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v18y2020i4d10.1007_s40258-019-00547-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Utilization Trends between Biosimilars and Generics: Lessons from the Nationwide Claims Data in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Hye-Jae Lee

    (National Health Insurance Research Institute, National Health Insurance Service
    Woosuk University)

  • Euna Han

    (Yonsei University)

  • Hyero Kim

    (Yonsei University)

Abstract

Background South Korea is unique in that it leads global markets in R&D as well as production of biosimilar products and was the first market into which some biosimilar products were introduced. We analyzed the time trend of market penetration and simulated saved spending by biosimilars in South Korea. Methods We pulled Korean National Health Insurance claims data from January 2012–December 2018 for second-generation biologics, including infliximab, rituximab, and trastuzumab, and examined the time trends of expenditure, utilization in defined daily dose, and price. We also assessed market penetration by biosimilars and simulated expenditure savings gained due to their introduction. We comparatively examined time trends and spending savings during the same period for selected small-molecule generic drugs to understand any specifics limited to biosimilars for time trends of market share and quantity-standardized prices. Results The market share for infliximab biosimilar plateaued at over 30%, which is smaller than the market penetration of esomeprazole (over 60%), a small-molecule comparator. Despite a shorter observation period, rituximab and trastuzumab biosimilars also showed larger utilization rates (12.89% and 13.93%, respectively) than infliximab (9.05%) in their second year after market entry. Infliximab was associated with approximately US $82–114 million expenditure savings over 6 years after its biosimilar entry to the market. Rituximab and trastuzumab biosimilars each also resulted in reduction in total spending by approximately US $9–14 million, in less than 2 years. Conclusion Biosimilars captured the market rapidly, despite a heterogeneous uptake rate by product in South Korea. However, expansion of biosimilar use in the market and consequent expenditure savings need to be supported by pre-emptive policy measures to encourage price competition and boost utilization.

Suggested Citation

  • Hye-Jae Lee & Euna Han & Hyero Kim, 2020. "Comparison of Utilization Trends between Biosimilars and Generics: Lessons from the Nationwide Claims Data in South Korea," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 557-566, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:18:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00547-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00547-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-019-00547-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-019-00547-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz & Adrian Towse & Mikel Berdud, 2016. "Biosimilars: How Can Payers Get Long-Term Savings?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 609-616, June.
    2. Annalisa Belloni & David Morgan & Valérie Paris, 2016. "Pharmaceutical Expenditure And Policies: Past Trends And Future Challenges," OECD Health Working Papers 87, OECD Publishing.
    3. Henry G. Grabowski, 2014. "Biosimilar Competition: Lessons from Europe and Prospects for the US," Seminar Briefing 001556, Office of Health Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    2. Aaltonen, Katri & Vaalavuo, Maria, 2024. "Financial burden of medicines in five Northern European countries: A decommodification perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 347(C).
    3. Simon Pol & Paula Rojas Garcia & Fernando Antoñanzas Villar & Maarten J. Postma & Antoinette D. I. Asselt, 2021. "Health-Economic Analyses of Diagnostics: Guidance on Design and Reporting," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1355-1363, December.
    4. François Bocquet & Anaïs Loubière & Isabelle Fusier & Anne-Laure Cordonnier & Pascal Paubel, 2016. "Competition Between Biosimilars and Patented Biologics: Learning from European and Japanese Experience," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(11), pages 1173-1186, November.
    5. Bence Kovács & Miklós Darida & Judit Simon, 2021. "Drugs Becoming Generics—The Impact of Genericization on the Market Performance of Antihypertensive Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Toon van der Gronde & Carin A Uyl-de Groot & Toine Pieters, 2017. "Addressing the challenge of high-priced prescription drugs in the era of precision medicine: A systematic review of drug life cycles, therapeutic drug markets and regulatory frameworks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-34, August.
    7. Sabine Vogler & Valérie Paris & Alessandra Ferrario & Veronika J. Wirtz & Kees Joncheere & Peter Schneider & Hanne Bak Pedersen & Guillaume Dedet & Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar, 2017. "How Can Pricing and Reimbursement Policies Improve Affordable Access to Medicines? Lessons Learned from European Countries," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 307-321, June.
    8. Barrenho, Eliana & Halmai, Réka & Miraldo, Marisa & Tzintzun, Iván & Raïs Ali, Setti & Toulemon, Léa & Dupont, Jean-Claude K. & Rochaix, Lise, 2022. "Inequities in cancer drug development in terms of unmet medical need," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 302(C).
    9. Serra-Sastre, Victoria & Bianchi, Simona & Mestre-Ferrandiz, Jorge & O’Neill, Phill, 2021. "Does NICE influence the adoption and uptake of generics in the UK?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113639, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Christensen, Elisabeth & Hirsch, Niels Christian & Andersen, Jonas Valbjørn & Ehlers, Lars Holger, 2022. "The analogue substitution model: Introducing competition in the absence of generic substitution in Danish hospitals," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(9), pages 844-852.
    11. Vogler, Sabine & Zimmermann, Nina & de Joncheere, Kees, 2016. "Policy interventions related to medicines: Survey of measures taken in European countries during 2010–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(12), pages 1363-1377.
    12. Yael Rachamin & Christoph Jakob Ackermann & Oliver Senn & Thomas Grischott, 2021. "Price trends of reimbursed oncological drugs in Switzerland in 2005–2019: A descriptive analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-12, November.
    13. Nazila Yousefi & Mahyar Polroudi Moghaddam & Gita Afsharmanesh & Farzad Peiravian, 2020. "Evaluation of efficiency enhancement in Iran Health Insurance Organization: a policy brief for pharmaceutical cost containment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(6), pages 1503-1511, November.
    14. Russo, Pierluigi & Carletto, Angelica & Németh, Gergely & Habl, Claudia, 2021. "Medicine price transparency and confidential managed-entry agreements in Europe: findings from the EURIPID survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(9), pages 1140-1145.
    15. Kyung-Bok Son, 2020. "Is greater generic competition also linked to lower drug prices in South Korea?," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Katharina E. Blankart & Friederike Arndt, 2020. "Physician-Level Cost Control Measures and Regional Variation of Biosimilar Utilization in Germany," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-14, June.
    17. Jaime Espin & Michael Schlander & Brian Godman & Pippa Anderson & Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz & Isabelle Borget & Adam Hutchings & Steven Flostrand & Adam Parnaby & Claudio Jommi, 2018. "Projecting Pharmaceutical Expenditure in EU5 to 2021: Adjusting for the Impact of Discounts and Rebates," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 803-817, December.
    18. Don Husereau & Brian Feagan & Carl Selya-Hammer, 2018. "Policy Options for Infliximab Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Given Emerging Evidence for Switching," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 279-288, June.
    19. Meina Hua & Huajun Tang & Ivan Ka Wai Lai, 2017. "Game Theoretic Analysis of Pricing and Cooperative Advertising in a Reverse Supply Chain for Unwanted Medications in Households," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-31, October.
    20. Dominik J. Wettstein & Stefan Boes, 2020. "The impact of reimbursement negotiations on cost and availability of new pharmaceuticals: evidence from an online experiment," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:18:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00547-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.