OBJECTIVES: To the best of our knowledge, till date, US do not market any biosimilar for the treatment of chemotherapy induced febrile neutropenia (CIN). With Europe and Asia already marketing their biosimilars, it was timely to estimate the value of this proposed biosimilar in the US. The primary goal of this comparative technology assessment was to estimate the economic value by quantifying the savings offered by the biosimilar compared to its reference biological, filgrastim. The secondary goal was to highlight the clinical value of a proposed biosimilar with the help of a cost-effectiveness analysis from a US payer perspective. The biosimilar is compared to filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, intended for the treatment of CIN.  METHODS: A decision analytical model was designed and implemented using TreeAge Pro 2013 software. The initial cost and clinical estimates were based on a similar model published by Eldar-Lissai et al (2008) with modified and updated clinical estimates along with costs adjusted to 2013. The model was modified to include a proposed biosimilar expected to be released in the U.S. in 2014. Sensitivity analyses, including Monte Carlo probabilistic analyses, were conducted to assess the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The model estimated expected costs for the three therapies to be:  $3,092.41, $3,808.81, and $5,238.82 for biosimilar filgrastim, originator filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim respectively. The estimated savings of the biosimilar is estimated to be $ 716.40 per chemotherapy cycle and as per estimated usage, this translates to a total potential savings of $1.2 billion by the end of 2014. The cost-effectiveness analysis resulted in an ICER of $ -3,766.29/day length of stay between biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim demonstrating clinical value. CONCLUSIONS: With the new US biosimilar legislation of February 2012 and filgrastim losing its patent protection in December 2013, this pharmacoeconomic analysis is timely and significant for health policy.