Prescription drug prices have long been a primary concern for patients, payers, and policymakers worldwide. In recent years, the surge of biosimilars and generics has emerged as a leading force in reshaping the economics of the pharmaceutical industry, promising not only reduced costs but also greater competition and accessibility. As of 2025, this movement — sometimes termed a cost-control countertrend – stands in contrast to the historical dominance of expensive, branded pharmaceuticals.
The Rise of Biosimilars and Generics
The global biosimilars market is currently experiencing rapid, near-exponential growth. By 2024, its market size was $34.43 billion and is projected to expand from $40.36 billion in 2025 to nearly $176 billion by 2034, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.78%. The generics market, long-established, remains the dominant force in prescription volume, comprising about 90% of prescriptions filled in the United States and over 65% of global pharmaceutical sales. Yet, the financial weight differs starkly: generics and biosimilars collectively account for only about 13% of U.S. drug spending, despite their immense volume.
From a geographic standpoint, Europe has traditionally led in biosimilar adoption, holding roughly 37-38% market share in 2024, with the Asia-Pacific region emerging as the fastest-growing sector, boasting CAGRs exceeding 25%. The U.S. market, while later to the game, is catching up rapidly, thanks to a slew of new approvals and a regulatory landscape that has steadily matured since the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) of 2009.
On the generics side, penetration rates are even higher. In 2023, generics represented over $445 billion in annual savings in the U.S. alone, highlighting their outsize impact on healthcare costs across all demographics and payer types.
Biosimilars vs. Generics
Biosimilars and generics serve similar missions – to provide more affordable versions of life-saving medicines. However, their differences are critical for patients and industry professionals alike:
| Feature | Generics | Biosimilars |
| Source | Small-molecule, chemically synthesized | Large, complex proteins made in living cells |
| Equivalence | Identical to reference product | Highly similar, but not identical |
| Regulatory Pathway | Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) | Biologics License Application (BLA, 351[k]) |
| Substitution | Freely substituted (subject to regulations) | Only interchangeable biosimilars can be auto-substituted |
| Development Time/Cost | 1-3 years, <$2 million | 8-10 years, $100–200 million |
| Savings Impact | Up to 85-95% price reduction | 15-40%+ price reduction |
Unlike generics, which must be bioequivalent to the brand-name drug, biosimilars must be “highly similar” to their originator biologic but may have minor differences in inactive components. This is because biologics are produced using living systems, making exact duplication by another manufacturer impossible – even for the same product. The FDA and EMA (Europe’s regulator) require robust analytical, nonclinical, and clinical evidence that there are no clinically meaningful differences between a biosimilar and its reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency.
Notably, only biosimilars granted “interchangeable” designation can be substituted at the pharmacy without prescriber input, analogous to generic substitutions in small molecules. This distinction is a key barrier to biosimilar uptake compared to generics.
Approval and Oversight
Biosimilars
Biosimilars face an exacting regulatory process. The FDA’s 351(k) pathway governs their approval, requiring:
- Analytical studies to demonstrate high similarity with the reference product
- Animal studies (as needed) for safety
- Clinical studies (comparative pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and, when necessary, efficacy trials)
- Totality-of-the-evidence evaluation (no single “pivotal” trial)
In the EU, the EMA has had biosimilar regulations since 2005, granting Europe an early lead in both frameworks and product launches. Initial U.S. biosimilar approvals (e.g., Zarxio in 2015) lagged Europe by nearly a decade, but recent years have seen the FDA narrowing this gap with numerous approvals and streamlined guidances, including recent changes eliminating the routine need for switching studies to prove interchangeability for some products.
Generics
Generics, by contrast, follow the Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) track. Here, the focus is on demonstrating:
- Same active ingredient, strength, dosage form, and route of administration as the brand
- Bioequivalence (rate and extent of absorption in healthy volunteers)
- Consistency in manufacturing and stability
- Identical labeling (with certain exceptions)
No animal or clinical efficacy studies are required beyond pharmacokinetic studies, drastically reducing development time and costs compared to biosimilars and new drugs. The Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 established this paradigm, driving waves of generic launches following patent expiry.
The Cost Savings Impact
The cost-control impact of biosimilars and generics cannot be overstated. Consider these highlights:
- U.S. generic and biosimilar drugs have yielded $3.1 trillion in savings over the past decade, including $445 billion in 2023 alone.
- Biosimilars alone have generated $36 billion in U.S. savings since 2015, with annual savings accelerating as more products and indications are launched.
- In Europe, biosimilar adoption has led to sustained savings – e.g., £1 billion saved in the UK NHS by switching five key biologics to biosimilars in 2023.
- Generics offer deep discounts of up to 97-99% off compared to branded versions for certain high-volume products in the U.S..
| Example Product | Brand Pre-Expiry Price | Generic/Biosimilar Price | Savings (%) | 2023 Volume Dispensed |
| Lipitor | $3.29/unit | $0.08/unit | 97% | 7.7B units |
| Crestor | $5.78/unit | $0.08/unit | 99% | 3.5B units |
| Norvasc | $1.54/unit | $0.02/unit | 99% | 5.5B units |
| Adalimumab (Humira) | $7,000/mo (estimated) | $1,200/mo (biosimilar) | 80%+ | N/A |
Stop Overpaying for Meds.
Coupons aren’t your only option – see if safer, more effective, and lower-cost alternatives are available. It’s fast, personalized, and 100% free. Learn More →
The upfront price drop with generics is much more pronounced – often exceeding 70% within the first 1-3 years of launch, especially once multiple competitors enter the market. For biosimilars, discounts typically start at 15-35%, but further price erosion accrues as product choice increases. Still, biosimilar adoption in the U.S. can lag behind their generic counterparts, especially in the first 12-24 months after launch.
Biosimilars vs. Reference Biologics and Generics vs. Brand Drugs
Biosimilars vs. Reference Biologics
Patent expiries are triggering a wave of biosimilar launches, with more than 85 biologic patents set to expire between 2025 and 2028. Once patents and regulatory exclusivity expire, biosimilar manufacturers can submit applications for highly similar versions, ushering in competition.
Price reductions in U.S. biosimilars have been more modest than generics – averaging 15-40%, but in crowded classes discounts can reach 50% or more. However, massive price drops seen with generics (85-99%) have not materialized for biologics, largely due to the complexity of these products, defensive contracting by originator manufacturers (so-called ‘patent thickets’ and rebate walls), and slower rates of substitution.
Further, branded biologics may reduce their own list prices by 20-40% in response to biosimilar competition, especially in markets with multiple competitive products. However, in the U.S., rebating and formulary management by PBMs (pharmacy benefit managers) often blunt these price effects, slowing biosimilar uptake and limiting direct savings for individual patients.
Generics vs. Branded Drugs
By contrast, generic launches trigger rapid price erosion. Markets with only 1-3 labelers (manufacturers) see price reductions of 20-40%; by the time there are 6-10 or more generic competitors, prices fall by 70-95% compared to pre-generic entry levels. This intense competition is the primary driver behind generics’ massive overall savings.
In the largest U.S. generic drugs markets, like statins and antihypertensives, generic penetration is typically 85-95% within a year or two post-launch, and out-of-pocket costs for patients are drastically lower – averaging $7.05 versus $27.10 for brands in 2023.
Major Biosimilar Launches 2019–2025
The period from 2019 to 2025 has been pivotal. The FDA approved or launched dozens of high-impact biosimilars in therapeutic areas such as oncology, immunology, and endocrinology. Here are highlights:
| Year | Molecule | Reference Product | Biosimilar(s)/Brand | Notes |
| 2019–2023 | Bevacizumab | Avastin® | Mvasi (Amgen), Zirabev | High penetration in oncology |
| 2019–2024 | Trastuzumab | Herceptin® | Kanjinti, Trazimera | >80% volume share in 3 years |
| 2023 | Adalimumab | Humira® | Amjevita, Cyltezo, etc. | U.S. market opened after delay |
| 2024–2025 | Ustekinumab | Stelara® | Yesintek, Selarsdi, etc. | Six biosimilars launched/approved |
| 2024–2025 | Denosumab | Prolia/Xgeva® | Wyost, Jubbonti, etc. | Five denosumab biosimilars in US |
| 2024–2025 | Insulin aspart | Novolog® | Kirsty, Merilog | First interchangeable insulin asp. |
In 2024 alone, the FDA approved an all-time record of 19 new biosimilars across multiple disease classes, indicating a rapidly accelerating pipeline.
Major Generic Drug Launches 2019–2025
The pace of first-time generic approvals has also remained robust. The FDA granted 914 ANDA approvals in 2022 alone, including 106 first generics, reinforcing its commitment to increasing market entry and reducing drug costs.
Recent high-profile first generics (2024–2025) include:
- Sitagliptin/metformin (Janumet XR): Diabetes care
- Rivaroxaban (Xarelto): Anticoagulation
- Palbociclib (Ibrance): Breast cancer
- Sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto): Heart failure
- Baricitinib (Olumiant): Rheumatoid arthritis
Uptake of these products varies, with some generics rapidly exceeding 50% of market share in their first year post-launch, while others face delays due to patient and provider familiarity, payer coverage, and PBM incentives.
Adoption Rates and Market Penetration
Biosimilars
- Biosimilar adoption is increasing, but penetration varies significantly by drug, region, and payer channel:
- Oncology biosimilars (e.g., bevacizumab, trastuzumab, rituximab) now account for >60-80% molecule share in the U.S. within three years of launch.
- Other biosimilars, like adalimumab (Humira), have so far reached less than 2% market share in the first year, a reflection of PBM rebate structures and insurance plan barriers.
- Europe and Asia-Pacific maintain higher average biosimilar penetration rates than the U.S. due to strong payer mandates and tenders—a key factor in cost savings seen abroad.
Generics
- Generic dispensing rates exceed 90% of all U.S. prescriptions, with key chronic medicines seeing market share approach 95%+
- Uptake after loss of exclusivity is usually rapid. For instance, first generics launched in 2021-22 frequently achieved 47% of market share within the first year, with continued gains into the second year. Slower uptake may be present in specialty or low-volume products, and insurance plan coverage remains a gating factor for some new generics.
Pricing Trends
| Product | Price Change After Competition | Notes |
| Generics | -70% to -99% | Deepest for drugs with 6+ competitors |
| Biosimilars | -15% to -40% (first year) | Larger discounts (>50%) as more are launched |
| Brands | -20% to -40% (in response) | Brands sometimes reduce price after biosimilar |
Generic prices have fallen over 20% since 2019; biosimilars now launch at discounts of 15-35% or more, with the greatest cost reductions observed in highly competitive classes. However, challenges such as supply shortages (often linked to low per-unit prices and operational constraints), rebating practices by PBMs, and delayed payer coverage can blunt initial savings.
Adoption Barriers and Implementation Case Studies
Despite clear economic incentives, biosimilar and generic adoption is often limited by PBM and insurance policy structures, supply chain considerations, and lingering provider or patient uncertainty.
Biosimilars Implementation: Real-World Examples
- Boston Medical Center switched nearly all eligible patients to infliximab-dyyb, saving $500,000 annually while maintaining high patient satisfaction (97% tolerated the switch).
- Articularis Healthcare/American Rheumatology Network successfully integrated cheaper biosimilars into care protocols by negotiating with payers and emphasizing high-quality, evidence-based switching.
- University of Maryland Medical Center saved an estimated $7,700 per patient per year after switching to biosimilar rituximab.
Generics also face adoption lags, especially when PBMs design formularies to favor brand drugs due to lucrative rebate arrangements. This is a significant contributor to slow initial uptake of new generics in both Medicare and commercial markets.
Patient and Physician Perspectives: Trust and Education
Patient and provider confidence is crucial for biosimilar and generic adoption.
Key findings:
- Awareness of biosimilars among U.S. patients remains low (6-30% depending on cohort) compared to biologics (20-47%).
- Among patients aware of biosimilars, willingness to use or switch rises, often due to cost and access benefits; those unaware or receiving information from non-provider sources are more hesitant.
- Providers are increasingly confident: over 60% of surveyed rheumatologists in Europe are willing to start new patients on biosimilars; U.S. providers lag slightly, with hesitancy highest for switching patients stable on originator biologics.
- Effective educational programs led by healthcare professionals and patient advocacy organizations are associated with higher biosimilar acceptance.
Generics have long enjoyed strong trust and are usually substituted without patient or provider protest, but even here, some skepticism persists among a subset of both groups, particularly for ‘complex’ generics or specialty drugs.
The Pipeline and Beyond (2025–2028)
Biosimilars
The pipeline for biosimilars is more crowded than ever. IPD Analytics projects dozens of pipeline products targeting blockbuster biologics with expiring patents by 2028, across oncology, immunology, endocrinology, and more. Noteworthy upcoming molecules include:
- Stelara® (ustekinumab): Several biosimilars launched or approved in 2024–2025.
- Ozempic® (semaglutide): Biosimilar development expected in response to global diabetes and obesity epidemic.
- Denosumab (Prolia, Xgeva®): Multiple biosimilars launched in 2024–2025 – expected to disrupt osteoporosis therapy markets.
- Novel self-injectable and subcutaneous biosimilars: Facilitate at-home care, align with telehealth adoption.
As more biosimilars receive interchangeable status, adoption will accelerate, particularly for high-volume therapies such as insulins and monoclonal antibodies.
Generics
The generics market will remain a prime cost-cutting lever. Yet, trends such as PBM consolidation, supply chain pressures, and evolving rebate strategies may threaten historical savings unless addressed by new policy reforms that prioritize access and competition over short-term profits.
Emerging markets (Asia-Pacific, Latin America) will play increasing roles, both in manufacturing and as new large-scale consumers of generics and biosimilars, on the back of supportive government policies and growing populations in need of affordable chronic therapies.
Better Treatment, Lower Cost – No Catch.
Find safer, more effective medications with fewer side effects – often for less money. It’s fast, free, and personalized. Learn More →
References (29)
- Precedence Research – Biosimilars Market Size to Hit USD 175.99 Billion by 2034
- GoodRx – Biosimilar vs. Generic: The 4 Core Differences (and Similarities)
- FDA – Biosimilars Info Sheet: Foundational Concepts
- FDA – Overview of the Regulatory Guidance for the Development and Approval of Biosimilar Products in the US
- JMCP – A Systematic Review of U.S. Biosimilar Approvals: What Evidence Does the FDA Require and How Are Manufacturers Responding?
- FDA – The Generic Drug Approval Process
- IJRPR – The USFDA Generic Drug Approval Pathway: A Comprehensive Review
- Accessible Medicines – U.S. Generic & Biosimilar Medicines Savings Report (2024)
- JAMA Health Forum – Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Drugs After Biosimilar Competition
- ASPE HHS – Competition in the U.S. Therapeutic Biologics Market
- IQVIA Institute – Biosimilars in the United States 2023–2027
- FDA – Generic Competition and Drug Prices
- ASPE HHS – Analysis of New Generic Markets (2025)
- Center for Biosimilars – Product Approvals and Launches
- AmerisourceBergen – U.S. Biosimilar Landscape March 2024
- FDA – First Generic Drug Approvals
- Drugs.com – New Generic Drug Approvals for 2025
- BiosimilarsIP – How the U.S. Compares to Europe on Biosimilar Approvals and Products in the Pipeline (2025)
- JAMA Network Open – Comparison of Uptake and Prices of Biosimilars in the US, Germany, and Switzerland
- FDA – Office of Generic Drugs 2022 Annual Report
- Accessible Medicines – Harnessing the Potential of Generics in Medicare and Commercial Market Drug Spending (June 2025)
- Chemxpert – Biosimilars Market Outlook 2025
- BioSpace – Samsung Bioepis Releases Third Quarter 2025 U.S. Biosimilar Market Report
- AHDB – Implementation Strategies of Biosimilars in Healthcare Systems: The Path Forward
- Genefic – Case Studies on Successful Biosimilar Launches
- Dove Medical Press – Patient attitudes and understanding about biosimilars: an international cross-sectional survey
- Springer – Patients’ Perceptions of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review
- IPD Analytics – Biosimilar Pipeline 2H 2025
- Prime Therapeutics – Quarterly Drug Pipeline: January 2025