Insulin production in California is aimed at lowering the cost of the drug. Listed Below Are Possible Approaches to the Problem

In an effort to address growing insulin prices, California governor Gavin Newsom declared that the state would develop its own insulin. The high cost of insulin “epitomises market failings,” he stated in a July 7 Twitter video. “Life-saving medication should not need a financial burden.” Insulin, a hormone, is used by about 8 million people in the United States to control their blood sugar. Insulin costs hundreds of dollars a month for Americans who are uninsured or have high-deductible insurance plans. Study participants said they had to miss doses or use less than suggested due of the high cost, according to a study published in 2019.

Biosimilar insulins, as proposed by Newsom, would be manufactured in California and be interchangeable with the currently available brand-name insulins. Patients should expect to spend anywhere from 47 to 95 percent less than they presently do, according to Alex Stack, deputy communications director for the governor’s office. (A person’s insurance status will determine how much they save.) As Stack points out, “If we can, there’s no reason others can’t while still making money.”


The state’s $308 billion budget, set aside for this purpose, would total $100 million under the proposed budget. When it comes to acquiring insulin from a manufacturing partner, the state of California will invest $50 million at the beginning. Stack believes it will happen in the first half of 2024. For Newsom’s “stronger supply chain,” the state intends to invest another $50 million on a California-based manufacturing facility. It is unclear how the insulin would be distributed, but Stack says it will be available to anyone in the United States, not just residents of California.

The expense of insulin isn’t the only issue that has to be addressed by the state of California. In March, Utah-based civica, a nonprofit pharmaceutical firm, announced that it would produce and sell its own low-cost insulin on a commercial scale. Biosimilars of the three most commonly used insulins in the United States—Lantus, Humalog, and Novolog—will be produced in vials and pens by the company. In Virginia, Civica is constructing a $140 million plant where it will produce insulin and other pharmaceuticals.

Civica intends to keep the cost of a vial at $30 and the cost of a box of pen cartridges at $55. Weight, diet, and whether or not a person has type 1 or type 2 diabetes all play a role in how long this might last.) According to Civica’s senior vice president of public policy, Allan Coukell, “our pricing is based on what it costs to manufacture and distribute the product, plus a modest margin that makes production feasible. According to Coukell, Civica plans to make its insulin widely available at drug stores across the United States, including those that sell prescription medications online. This medication is available at any pharmacy that wishes to purchase and abides by our price strategy, which does not mark up the product too much before it reaches its final destination, says the CEO of the company, Coukell.

In order to speed up the development of a biosimilar, companies like as California and Civica have partnered with those who are currently producing their own insulin in order to reduce the time and money needed to create a biosimilar. Civica has teamed up with an Indian biotech business to produce biosimilar insulin, but the state of California has yet to make a decision. Aiming to get its first insulin product on the market by 2024, Civica also has this goal in mind.

Insulin was developed in 1921, and a 14-year-old boy with diabetes was the first person to receive treatment with it the following year. In 1923, a Nobel Prize was awarded for the medical discovery. Originally, the hormone was derived from the pancreas of cows and pigs, but researchers were able to synthesize a human-safe version in 1978. It was the first genetically modified medication. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi have dominated the insulin market in the United States since then.

It’s a big job to make insulin. Because it’s formed up of living cells, it qualifies as a biological drug. Small-molecule pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, can be mass-produced in vast quantities, but biologics are made up of big molecules and need a lot of time and effort to make. A human gene that provides instructions on how to generate insulin protein is introduced into massive tanks of yeast or bacteria cells by scientists in order to begin the production of insulin. Vials and injectable pens are made from the protein that yeast or bacteria cells produce. “It’s not just about putting some chemicals together and seeing what happens.” Walid Gellad, director of the University of Pittsburgh Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing, says “there’s a lot more that goes into producing a sophisticated biologic” According to Antoinette Forbes, associate vice president of public affairs at Eli Lilly, the company’s insulin production process is overseen by over 5,000 engineers and other scientists.

Until now, insulin makers couldn’t even try to make cheaper versions of the drug. It is impossible to make generics for biologics because they aren’t typical medications, and they aren’t equivalent to brand-name ones. The FDA now has a way to approve biosimilars thanks to a regulation passed in 2010. For the first time, the FDA has made it easier for insulin manufacturers to enter the market in 2020. A Semglee insulin biosimilar that can be used in place of Lantus was approved in July 2021. GoodRx estimates that a vial of Semglee costs roughly $100, while a vial of Lantus can cost up to $300.

PBMs, businesses that function as mediators between insurance and drug makers, have also been criticised for the high cost of insulin. By offering rebates and discounts, manufacturers are able to raise the initial list price of their pharmaceuticals, according to critics. PBMs, on the other hand, collect a portion of these rebates. The Senate Finance Committee conducted a two-year study into the practise and presented its conclusions in January 2021. It’s not because the medicine has been improved or is more expensive to manufacture that the price has gone up, according to Campbell Hutton, vice president of regulatory and health policy at JDRF. JDRF is a nonprofit organisation based in New York that funds research into type 1 diabetes. There will be no rebates in California’s plan.

Customers aren’t seeing an increase in profits as insulin prices climb, according to executives from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, as well as Sanofi. Insulin revenue after discounts and rebates has been steadily decreasing over the previous few years, they claimed. Sanofi’s senior vice president and head of corporate relations in the United States, Adam Gluck, noted that the net price of their insulin has dropped by 54% since 2012, after the company pays rebates. As he put it, “PBM rebate demands for pharmaceutical products have been an ingrained component of our health care system for nearly two decades now.

The net price per vial of Eli Lilly’s insulin Humalog reduced by 26% from 2016 to 2021, a company spokeswoman noted. And Novo Nordisk representative Allison Schneider noted that her company’s net pricing has also decreased over the past five years because of rebates and reductions it pays. Players from the whole supply chain influence the dynamics of the US health care market.” Patients’ insulin costs are determined by a variety of circumstances, according to the author’s research.

Each company has its own set of guidelines for determining who is eligible for patient assistance programmes aimed at providing insulin to those who cannot otherwise afford it.
Democrat members of Congress are also addressing high insulin costs in addition to California’s and Civica’s plans for the future. The Affordable Insulin Now Act was enacted by the US House of Representatives in March, capping out-of-pocket insulin prices for Americans with private insurance and Medicare at $35 per month. The Senate rejected the motion, which was backed by Vice President Biden.

An endocrinologist who specialises in treating diabetes at the University of Washington thinks that California’s and Civica initiatives are novel methods to address the issue of insulin cost. In combination, he believes that these technologies “may be a total market disruptor”.

Neither strategy, however, would provide a quick fix for individuals who are now dealing with high insulin expenditures. Insulin biosimilar production by California—or Civica—or any other company is now more readily available, but it will still need to undergo extensive testing to ensure that it is both safe and functionally equivalent to the currently available brand names. Hirsch explains that the FDA will be the hardest obstacle to overcome in this endeavour. When it comes to this, “there’s no room for error.”

Leave a Comment