The Federal Government has vowed to go ahead with the introduction of biosimilar drugs in Australia, despite opposition by pharmacy companies and consumer lobby groups.

The growing stoush involves the replacement of what are known as biologic drugs with the less costly biosimilars.

Biologic medicines — which are produced from living organisms including bacteria, yeast and human cells — have become increasingly popular in the last decade to treat conditions like arthritis, and are likened to generic versions of chemical drugs.

Biosimilar medicines are not exactly the same as the biologics they replace because it is not possible to make an exact copy of a medicine made from living organisms.

Under a recommendation from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), doctors and pharmacists will be allowed to give patients the option of biosimilar medicines in the same way they can now offer generic versions of chemical treatments.

The Government said the move would save the budget $880 million over the next five years, but opponents of the plan said patient safety may be compromised.

Five of the top 10 drugs subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) are biologics, which would cost patients between $400 and $1,700 per treatment without taxpayer subsidy.

Neil Goldsmith, who has been on the biologic treatment infliximab for his arthritis for about 10 years, said he would certainly try a biosimilar or generic version if it were available.

"Definitely, as long as it has the same effect on my arthritis," he said.

"I'd love the opportunity to save the Government some money.

"I guess you never know if it is perfectly identical, but I'd be willing to try, and if there are side effects maybe go back to the original drug."

More research needed, pharmaceutical group says

Pharmaceutical industry group Medicines Australia's chief executive, Tim James, said more research was needed.

Mr James told a Senate committee the move was "out of step" with the rest of the world.

"On biosimilars and across our health care system, notions of safety first, of do no harm and of putting into practice, the precautionary principle should always come first," he said.

Consumers Health Forum policy manager Jospehine Root agreed the introduction of biosimilars to Australia is premature.

"We've had a number of representations from people who've taken a long time to get onto a biologic and I'm worried they'll have to switch to a biosimilar and they're not sure of the effect," she said.

But Professor Geoffrey McColl from the PBAC said there was plenty of research available into biosimilars, particularly for arthritis.

"I look at that dossier and am confident that substitution is a reasonable way to move forward," he said.

He said patients would still be able to choose to stay on their original medications and there would be more consultations to make sure patients understood the changes.

"That's the key issue from the patient's perspective, because they have to have confidence that they're going to get the same effect and they're not going to have side effects that they didn't have before," he said.

But he said the change would not save patients money because biologics already met the co-payment cap.

Health Minister Sussan Ley said biologics had grown from about 4 per cent of the PBS budget 10 years ago to about 25 per cent today.

Biologics cost the Government about $2.3 billion over the 2013-14 financial year.

She said biosimilars would help save the Government money and she was confident in the advice she had received from the PBAC and the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

"The strength of clinical advice, evidence, research and expertise that underpins the individuals that I've spoken to personally in both of these organisations gives me the absolute confidence to know that the decisions they are making about biosimilar medicines will be the right ones," she said.