Reimbursement and Coding for Biosimilars: How Billing Works Under Medicare Part B
26 Dec

When a doctor gives you a biosimilar instead of the original biologic drug, the billing process isn’t as simple as switching one pill for another. Unlike generic small-molecule drugs, biosimilars are complex biological products made from living cells. Their reimbursement under Medicare Part B follows a unique, highly technical system that affects everything from provider profits to how fast these cheaper alternatives reach patients.

How Biosimilars Are Coded Differently Than Generics

Biosimilars don’t use the same coding system as traditional generics. You won’t find them listed under standard J-codes like J0123 for a generic antibiotic. Instead, each FDA-approved biosimilar gets its own unique HCPCS code-either a temporary Q-code or a permanent J-code. This is a critical difference from generic drugs, where all versions of the same chemical compound share one code. For example, if a patient gets Inflectra (a biosimilar to Remicade), the provider must bill using the specific code for Inflectra, not a shared code for all infliximab biosimilars.

This change didn’t happen overnight. Before 2018, all biosimilars for the same reference product used one blended code. That created a problem: if one biosimilar entered the market at a lower price, others could ride on its lower average payment without having to compete on cost. That’s called the "free rider" effect. In January 2018, CMS switched to individual codes for each biosimilar to fix that. Now, each product’s payment is tied directly to its own Average Selling Price (ASP), not a group average.

How Medicare Pays for Biosimilars

Medicare Part B pays for biosimilars using a formula: 100% of the biosimilar’s ASP plus 6% of the reference product’s ASP. So if Remicade (the original) costs $2,500 per dose and Inflectra costs $2,000, the provider gets paid $2,000 (100% of Inflectra’s ASP) plus 6% of $2,500 ($150). That’s $2,150 total.

That 6% add-on is the same for both the reference biologic and the biosimilar. That means even though Inflectra is 20% cheaper, the provider only saves $30 per dose in reimbursement. That small gap doesn’t strongly motivate providers to switch. In fact, studies show that in some oncology practices, providers still use the more expensive reference product because the profit margin is higher, even if the drug cost is lower.

When a new biosimilar enters the market, it initially gets paid at 106% of its Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) for the first six months-until enough real-world sales data is collected to calculate its ASP. After that, payment shifts to the ASP-based formula. Subsequent biosimilars for the same reference product skip the WAC period and go straight to the ASP-based rate.

The JZ Modifier: A New Layer of Complexity

Starting July 1, 2023, providers must use the JZ modifier on claims for infliximab and its biosimilars when no drug is discarded. This means if a vial contains 100 mg and the patient only needs 50 mg, and the provider throws away the rest, no modifier is needed. But if the entire vial is used-no waste-then JZ must be added to the claim. This change was meant to reduce waste and ensure accurate payment, but it’s added a new administrative burden.

A 2023 survey of gastroenterology practices found that billing staff spent 30% more time verifying discarded amounts after the JZ rule went into effect. Many clinics now use double-check systems: one person confirms the dose administered, another checks the vial usage and selects the correct modifier. Without it, claims get denied.

Doctor and nurse comparing expensive reference drug and cheaper biosimilar with payment tags floating nearby.

Why Providers Still Use the Expensive Drug

Despite biosimilars being 20-30% cheaper, adoption in the U.S. lags behind Europe. In Europe, biosimilars make up 75-85% of the market for drugs like infliximab. In the U.S., it’s still around 35%. Why?

The reimbursement structure is a big reason. In Europe, many countries use reference pricing: they set one payment rate for all drugs in the class, and manufacturers compete to offer the lowest price. In the U.S., providers still make more money per dose from the reference product because the 6% add-on is based on its higher ASP. That creates a financial incentive to stick with the brand.

A 2020 analysis by MIT’s Dr. Mark Trusheim found that for every dose of Remicade, providers earn $150 in add-on revenue. For Inflectra, they earn $120. That $30 difference adds up fast-especially in clinics treating hundreds of patients a month. One oncology center reported that even with a 20% price discount, Inflectra utilization stayed under 25% for years.

What Happens When Claims Get Denied

Billing errors are common, especially during the transition to individual codes. A 2022 survey of 217 cancer centers found that 68% had billing confusion after the 2018 coding change. Forty-two percent experienced claim denials in the first six months. The most frequent mistakes? Using the wrong HCPCS code or forgetting the JZ modifier.

Providers now rely on updated CMS drug pricing files, which are published quarterly. But many still use outdated codes-22% of initial denials come from this alone. Successful practices use dual verification: pharmacy staff confirm the product given, and billing staff cross-check the code before submission. This cuts error rates from 12-15% down to under 3%.

Some manufacturers, like Fresenius Kabi, now offer free coding guides with up-to-date HCPCS codes and modifier instructions. In a 2023 survey, 87% of providers said these guides helped reduce errors.

Healthcare team celebrating approved claims with coding guides and JZ modifier checks in a sunlit hallway.

What’s Next for Biosimilar Reimbursement?

There’s growing pressure to fix the system. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has proposed a "consolidated billing" model: instead of paying each biosimilar separately, Medicare would pay 106% of the volume-weighted average price of all drugs in the class. That’s called a Least Costly Alternative (LCA) payment. Under this system, if three biosimilars are on the market, the payment would be based on the average of all their prices, not the reference product’s.

If adopted, this could boost biosimilar use by 15-20 percentage points, according to Avalere Health. It would also save Medicare billions. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that full LCA implementation could save $3.2 billion over 10 years.

CMS is currently reviewing options. In February 2023, they issued a notice asking for feedback on alternatives to the current 6% add-on structure-like a fixed-dollar payment or removing the reference product’s ASP from the biosimilar calculation entirely.

For now, the system remains complex. But with 32 FDA-approved biosimilars on the market as of late 2023 and the market expected to hit $15 billion by 2027, pressure to simplify and incentivize use will only grow.

What Providers Need to Do Today

If you’re a provider billing for biosimilars, here’s what you need to do right now:

  1. Use the correct HCPCS code for the exact biosimilar administered. Don’t assume all infliximab biosimilars use the same code.
  2. Check CMS’s quarterly Physician Fee Schedule for updated pricing. Codes and rates change every three months.
  3. Apply the JZ modifier only when no drug is discarded from the vial.
  4. Verify the product with pharmacy staff before submitting the claim.
  5. Keep manufacturer coding guides on hand-they’re often more practical than CMS’s technical documents.

Training staff takes 40-60 hours per practice, but it’s worth it. Practices that invest in clear processes see fewer denials, faster payments, and better patient access to lower-cost drugs.

Why This Matters for Patients

Biosimilars aren’t just cheaper for Medicare-they’re cheaper for patients too. Lower provider reimbursement often translates to lower out-of-pocket costs, especially under Medicare Advantage plans. But if providers don’t use biosimilars because the payment doesn’t incentivize it, patients won’t benefit.

Right now, the system rewards complexity over savings. Until reimbursement aligns with the goal of lowering costs-rather than preserving margins-biosimilars will keep fighting an uphill battle in the U.S. market. The technology exists. The science is solid. The question is whether the payment system will catch up.

How is biosimilar reimbursement different from generic drug reimbursement?

Generic drugs all share one HCPCS code and are paid at 100% of their ASP with no add-on. Biosimilars each have their own unique code and are paid at 100% of their ASP plus 6% of the reference product’s ASP. This means even if a biosimilar is cheaper, the provider’s reimbursement isn’t reduced proportionally.

Why do providers sometimes choose the more expensive reference product over a biosimilar?

Because Medicare pays providers 6% of the reference product’s ASP as an add-on. If the reference product costs $2,500 and the biosimilar costs $2,000, the provider earns $150 in add-on revenue for the reference product versus $120 for the biosimilar. That $30 difference adds up over time and can influence prescribing habits.

What is the JZ modifier and when is it required?

The JZ modifier is required on claims for infliximab and its biosimilars when the entire vial is used and no drug is discarded. If a provider opens a vial and uses all of it, they must add JZ to the claim. If any drug is thrown away, the modifier is not needed. This rule went into effect on July 1, 2023.

How often are biosimilar payment rates updated?

CMS updates biosimilar payment rates quarterly, based on the most recent Average Selling Price (ASP) data. The updated rates are published in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and take effect on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 each year.

Do Medicare Advantage plans pay the same as traditional Medicare for biosimilars?

No. Traditional Medicare Part B pays 106% of ASP for biosimilars. Medicare Advantage plans often pay less-typically 100% to 103% of ASP-and sometimes negotiate different rates with providers. Patients may face higher out-of-pocket costs depending on their plan’s formulary and reimbursement rules.

What percentage of U.S. biosimilar use is covered by Medicare Part B?

Medicare Part B covers an estimated 65% of all biosimilar administrations in the U.S., primarily for drugs given in doctors’ offices and outpatient clinics. The rest are covered by private insurance, Medicaid, or other programs.

Is there a chance Medicare will change how it pays for biosimilars soon?

Yes. CMS is actively evaluating alternatives, including eliminating the reference product’s ASP from the biosimilar payment formula or switching to a consolidated payment based on the average price of all drugs in the class. MedPAC has recommended this change, and public comments are under review. A policy shift could happen as early as 2025.

Providers who understand these rules can help patients access affordable treatments. Those who don’t risk claim denials, lost revenue, and missed opportunities to reduce healthcare costs.

Nikolai Mortenson

Hello, my name is Nikolai Mortenson, and I am a dedicated expert in the field of pharmaceuticals. I have spent years studying and researching various medications and their effects on the human body. My passion for understanding diseases and their treatments has led me to become a prolific writer on these topics. I aim to educate and inform people about the importance of proper medication usage, as well as the latest advancements in medical research. I often discuss dietary supplements and their role in health maintenance. Through my work, I hope to contribute to a healthier and more informed society. My wife Abigail and our two children, Felix and Mabel, are my biggest supporters. In my free time, I enjoy gardening, hiking and, of course, writing. Our Golden Retriever, Oscar, usually keeps me company during these activities. I reside in the beautiful city of Melbourne, Australia.

view all posts

12 Comments

Anna Weitz

  • December 27, 2025 AT 22:41

So the system literally pays doctors to keep using the expensive drug because the 6% add-on is tied to the brand not the biosimilar

Kylie Robson

  • December 28, 2025 AT 21:24

The ASP+6% model is a classic misalignment of incentives. You're essentially subsidizing the reference product's pricing architecture by tethering biosimilar reimbursement to its ASP. This isn't reimbursement-it's regulatory capture disguised as cost containment. The 6% add-on should be decoupled entirely and replaced with a flat margin or volume-based incentive. Otherwise, you're just perpetuating the biologics oligopoly under a new name.

Elizabeth Ganak

  • December 28, 2025 AT 21:45

my clinic started using the fresenius coding guides last month and our denial rate dropped from 14% to 2%. honestly? they’re way clearer than cms docs. just saying.

John Barron

  • December 29, 2025 AT 01:58

Let’s be precise: the JZ modifier was introduced under 42 CFR §414.902(c)(2) to ensure accurate payment integrity under the Medicare Part B drug payment model. The modifier’s requirement is contingent upon the absence of drug waste, which is defined as any residual volume exceeding the clinically necessary dose. This is not merely administrative-it’s a compliance mechanism designed to prevent overpayment stemming from unreported vial discard. Failure to comply constitutes a potential False Claims Act exposure.

Jane Lucas

  • December 29, 2025 AT 13:07

i just want to know why my aunt still gets remicade when inflectra is cheaper and the docs say its the same thing

dean du plessis

  • December 30, 2025 AT 18:32

the system is broken but not because of the codes or modifiers. its because profit comes before patients. in europe they just pay one price and let the market fight. here we pay more so doctors can make more. sad but true

Nicola George

  • December 31, 2025 AT 04:33

oh so the 6% add-on is why my oncologist still prescribes remicade even though the biosimilar is half the cost? wow. so we're literally paying for the brand name like it's a luxury car. brilliant. 🤡

Raushan Richardson

  • January 1, 2026 AT 14:21

if we fix this reimbursement mess, biosimilars could save billions and get more people the meds they need. we’ve got the science, we’ve got the will-now we just need the system to catch up. let’s do this 💪

Robyn Hays

  • January 3, 2026 AT 02:39

it’s wild how something so technically simple-like giving a cheaper drug-gets tangled in billing codes, modifiers, and profit math. it’s not about the science anymore, it’s about who gets paid what. the real question is: who benefits when patients wait longer for affordable care? the answer’s written in the CMS fee schedule.

Liz Tanner

  • January 3, 2026 AT 23:58

the JZ modifier is a nightmare for small clinics. one typo, one missed vial check, and the claim gets denied. it’s not about waste-it’s about paperwork overload. we need automation, not more checkboxes.

Babe Addict

  • January 5, 2026 AT 02:40

you think this is bad? wait till CMS starts using AI to audit vial waste. next thing you know, they’ll be installing cameras in the infusion chairs to verify you didn't 'accidentally' discard 15mg. this isn't healthcare reform-it's surveillance capitalism in a lab coat.

Elizabeth Alvarez

  • January 6, 2026 AT 11:06

the 6% add-on isn't a mistake-it's a deliberate strategy by Big Pharma to keep biosimilars from taking over. the same companies that own the reference drugs also lobby CMS. they wrote the rules. the JZ modifier? a distraction. the coding changes? theater. the real goal is to keep you paying $2500 for a drug that should cost $800. they're afraid of competition. they're afraid of transparency. and they're afraid you'll figure out they've been lying to you for a decade.


remember: the first biosimilar was approved in 2015. it's 2024. why is the U.S. still at 35% adoption? because the system is rigged. not broken. rigged.


the congressional budget office says LCA could save $3.2 billion? that's $3.2 billion taken from Big Pharma's bottom line. that's why they're fighting it. that's why CMS is 'reviewing options.' that's why your doctor still prescribes Remicade. it's not about what's best for you. it's about what's best for the stock price.


next time you hear 'biosimilar' and 'cost savings,' ask yourself: who's really saving money here?

Write a comment