Trending
I was three years old when I was diagnosed with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis, called juvenile rheumatoid or "little people's arthritis" back in 1985. My parents were floored by the diagnosis because I did not look like my grandparents' arthritis. I looked like a 3‑year‑old who did not like to be touched and then stopped walking.
Before I even learned to read, I learned what it meant to live in a body that could suddenly turn on itself, and what it meant to depend on powerful medicines, often at adult doses, just to get through the day.
Biologic drugs have transformed life for many people with JIA and other autoimmune diseases, but they are not magic. I have had adverse reactions to standard biologics like Remicade (infliximab), and I know what it feels like when the "miracle drug" your doctor recommends makes you sicker, or in my case stop breathing, instead of better. We even tried premedicating with antihistamines, inhalers, and steroids before treatments, hoping to squeeze a little more life out of a drug that might give me a more pain‑free life.
That history is why I bristled when I heard politicians talk about "cutting red tape" and "speeding access" to biosimilars, the follow‑on versions of brand‑name biologics, through Representative Nick Langworthy's "Expedited Access to Biosimilars Act." We heard similar language during the Covid‑19 vaccine rollout, when many of us worried that speed was taking priority over scrutiny. Whatever one thinks about those vaccines, public trust has never fully recovered. Do we really trust the FDA to put public safety ahead of dollars?
Now, with biosimilars, Congress is once again being told that "faster is better" and that less testing is just "removing unnecessary barriers." For people like me, this is not an abstract policy discussion. It is about whether the drugs we are given have actually been tested in real patients, or just look good on a lab report.
Biosimilars are not simple generics you can stamp out on a pill press. They are large, complex molecules made in living cells, and small changes in how they are produced can affect how the immune system responds or how well they control disease. Under current rules, they must be "highly similar" to the original biologic with "no clinically meaningful differences" in safety or effectiveness.
In practice, that has meant detailed lab testing plus at least some clinical studies to show that patients really do as well on the biosimilar as they did on the original. It is not perfect, and there is reasonable debate about how much human data is enough. But at least the system admits a basic truth. With immune‑modifying drugs, "almost the same in the lab" is not always "the same in the body."
Representative Langworthy's bill is being sold as a way to lower drug costs and bring more competition to the market. Buried under that feel‑good language is a simple change with big consequences. It would sharply limit the use of comparative clinical efficacy studies, the head‑to‑head trials that directly test whether a biosimilar works as well as the original drug.
Under this proposal, larger clinical trials would no longer be the default. Regulators would be pushed to rely mainly on lab chemistry and smaller studies, saving the bigger human trials for situations they decide are "scientifically necessary." Supporters say these trials are expensive and slow, and often redundant. In plain English, the message sounds more like, "We'd rather not run bigger human studies unless we absolutely have to, because they cost money and might slow us down."
That might sound reasonable if we were talking about heartburn pills. But we are talking about immune‑modulating biologics given to children with JIA, adults with rheumatoid arthritis, patients with inflammatory bowel disease, and people undergoing cancer treatment. Do we trust the FDA to make the call on what is "necessary" when it could cost Big Pharma extra money to run those tests?
During the Covid‑19 pandemic, vaccines moved from trial to injection at breathtaking speed. Some people were reassured by the volume of data. Others, especially those who had already been burned by adverse reactions to biologics, felt the process was rushed and that concerns were brushed aside. We now live with deep, lingering mistrust of public health messaging. You do not rebuild that trust by telling patients, "Don't worry, we're doing even less testing now." Yet that is exactly how this new approach to biosimilars sounds to those of us who live with chronic autoimmune disease and know how differently the same drug can behave in different bodies.
One of the biggest safety concerns with biologics and biosimilars is immunogenicity, the risk that the drug will provoke an immune response that neutralizes its benefit or causes serious side effects. These reactions are often rare and unpredictable, the kind of thing that shows up only when enough real people have been exposed and followed over time. Lab tests and small trials cannot always catch that.
For someone with JIA, losing control of disease because of a subtle difference in a biosimilar is not just an inconvenience. It can mean more permanent joint damage, organ problems, missed work, and the mental toll of watching yet another "solution" fail. As a patient who has already suffered through serious reactions, I am not eager to see the guardrails loosened so manufacturers can move faster.
To be clear, under current standards, switching from originator biologics to existing biosimilars has not led to widespread safety problems or loss of effectiveness. That track record is a product of the very scrutiny this bill wants to roll back. It is precisely because we insisted on careful, step‑by‑step introduction, comparative trials, switching studies, and strong follow‑up that biosimilars have been able to gain a foothold.
Lowering drug prices, however, does matter. My current copay for my biologic is $500/month with insurance through my employer. Families dealing with chronic illness know too well what it means to be held hostage by the cost of a medication that finally works. But cost savings should not come from cutting corners on the evidence that a drug is safe and effective.
If Congress truly wants to help, there are better targets than doing Big Pharma's bidding and telling the FDA to look the other way. They can crack down on patent games that keep cheaper options off the market long after the original patent should matter. They can shine a light on middlemen and rebate deals that reward higher list prices and punish plans for choosing a lower‑priced biosimilar. They can make sure the cheaper drug is actually cheaper at the pharmacy counter by requiring lower co‑pays for biosimilars and capping out‑of‑pocket costs for essential biologics, so regular people are not stuck with $500 bills while drug companies post record profits. And instead of canceling clinical trials, they can fund independent head‑to‑head studies and honest patient education, so people can see real‑world proof that a biosimilar works before they are pushed to switch. They can also face an uncomfortable truth: on average, drug prices in the United States are about three times higher than in similar countries, and even the "new" negotiated Medicare prices still come in above what other nations pay and could effectively rise again as seniors lose Medicare Part D subsidies. So why are we being asked to accept less testing and more risk while still paying the highest prices in the developed world? Instead of weakening standards, Congress should be asking why Americans are paying the most and getting the least protection, and fixing that rigged game first.
For more than four decades, I have lived with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis and navigated the promises and pitfalls of biologic therapy. I am not anti‑science or anti‑innovation. I am someone whose body has been a test case for powerful medicines, and who has learned, sometimes the hard way, that those medicines deserve powerful scrutiny.
I would have said all of this during a teletown hall with Congressman Langworthy, but my questions are never brought on, there are no in‑person opportunities to ask him directly, and contacting his office brings back the same canned "agree to disagree, but I'll keep your thoughts in mind" response. If lawmakers want patients to embrace biosimilars, they should strengthen, not dilute, the standards that prove these drugs are truly as safe and effective as the originals. "Cutting red tape" makes for a good slogan. But when the tape you are cutting is the evidence that stands between vulnerable patients and avoidable harm, it is not red tape anymore. It is a lifeline.
Leslie LaBarte is a Jamestown resident.