|
|
Post by buyitonsale on Apr 10, 2019 22:43:55 GMT -5
Target PCPs and T2s. Endos are currently not available... sold out  |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 11, 2019 7:12:01 GMT -5
It's quite illegal. But you can't let reality get in the way of your dreams. Yeah, outside my area of legalize...that's why I had to ask because we know it's done (wink-wink) but, they'll do it until they get caught. Sounds like Risk-Reward/Cost-Benefit planning...not like Pharma-bro and his defrauding investors. It is not done, even with a wink-wink, since the 1980s. There are a host of laws that this violates, but you can start with the Stark Act (federal) which strictly speaking applies only to Medicare and other federally funded programs, but there are similar statutes in every state that cover private insurers as well. Originally designed to combat excessive referrals of lab tests to physician-owned laboratories, it has been expanded to cover all forms of medical services and outpatient prescriptions. If it smells like a kickback, it is a kickback. Any time a physician is paid directly in exchange for the number of prescriptions written both the physician and the company making the payment are in deep trouble. That doesn't stop companies from doing nice things for their heavy prescribers, like holding seminars at nice resorts, but linking patient volume to specific rewards is clearly prohibited. While there are criminal penalties available, the usual hammer is disgorgement of past profits and banning the physician from billing Medicare for any service for some period of time. You can imagine the financial consequences if a medical practice is unable to bill Medicare for three to five years. |
|
|
|
Post by bigchungus91354 on Apr 11, 2019 7:21:03 GMT -5
The Sunshine Act requires reporting of all payments to prescribers that COULD influence prescribing habits, made by any entity. There is actually a publicly available database of these sums by physician in the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Apr 11, 2019 7:33:48 GMT -5
The Sunshine Act requires reporting of all payments to prescribers that COULD influence prescribing habits, made by any entity. There is actually a publicly available database of these sums by physician in the US. lay some sunshine on the rebate system to the pharmacy purchasing managers for formulary placement. With drug pricing complaints and medical care in the news, medicare for all being brought up. Not one legislator mentions that medicare negotiates their drug prices. |
|
|
|
Post by bigchungus91354 on Apr 11, 2019 7:38:49 GMT -5
The Sunshine Act requires reporting of all payments to prescribers that COULD influence prescribing habits, made by any entity. There is actually a publicly available database of these sums by physician in the US. lay some sunshine on the rebate system to the pharmacy purchasing managers for formulary placement. With drug pricing complaints and medical care in the news, medicare for all being brought up. Not one legislator mentions that medicare negotiates their drug prices. Let it shine on down! |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Apr 11, 2019 10:49:12 GMT -5
Yeah, outside my area of legalize...that's why I had to ask because we know it's done (wink-wink) but, they'll do it until they get caught. Sounds like Risk-Reward/Cost-Benefit planning...not like Pharma-bro and his defrauding investors. It is not done, even with a wink-wink, since the 1980s. There are a host of laws that this violates, but you can start with the Stark Act (federal) which strictly speaking applies only to Medicare and other federally funded programs, but there are similar statutes in every state that cover private insurers as well. Originally designed to combat excessive referrals of lab tests to physician-owned laboratories, it has been expanded to cover all forms of medical services and outpatient prescriptions. If it smells like a kickback, it is a kickback. Any time a physician is paid directly in exchange for the number of prescriptions written both the physician and the company making the payment are in deep trouble. That doesn't stop companies from doing nice things for their heavy prescribers, like holding seminars at nice resorts, but linking patient volume to specific rewards is clearly prohibited. While there are criminal penalties available, the usual hammer is disgorgement of past profits and banning the physician from billing Medicare for any service for some period of time. You can imagine the financial consequences if a medical practice is unable to bill Medicare for three to five years. Wasn't it obvious to all of us that buyitonsale's incentive "proposal" was tongue in cheek and not a serious proposal? |
|
|
|
Post by bigchungus91354 on Apr 12, 2019 8:58:10 GMT -5
I think even with the current debacle, the company is still worth $600-800M, if they sell it now, before they end up in a desperate position. The longer they wait though, the less leverage they will have. I hope our CEO has the common sense to realize, sale or merger is really the only option at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by boca1girl on Apr 12, 2019 9:36:44 GMT -5
I think even with the current debacle, the company is still worth $600-800M, if they sell it now, before they end up in a desperate position. The longer they wait though, the less leverage they will have. I hope our CEO has the common sense to realize, sale or merger is really the only option at this point. Bugs, you sure do sound like John Kastanses. |
|
|
|
Post by rickf on Apr 12, 2019 9:48:15 GMT -5
Dumb question maybe - but - if it was sold - what would the shareholders get pps?? Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by bigchungus91354 on Apr 12, 2019 10:00:45 GMT -5
Dumb question maybe - but - if it was sold - what would the shareholders get pps?? Any ideas? Depends on sale price, debt, shares outstanding etc. Last year this co had 100M shares and ~$200M in debt. I think they could have gotten over $1B. Shareholders would have gotten about $10/share. Now they have about 260M shares or so out. $100M in debt? but Afrezza sales are looking very bleak, The same $1B would be about $3.60/share today |
|
|
|
Post by rickf on Apr 12, 2019 10:12:14 GMT -5
Dumb question maybe - but - if it was sold - what would the shareholders get pps?? Any ideas? Depends on sale price, debt, shares outstanding etc. Last year this co had 100M shares and ~$200M in debt. I think they could have gotten over $1B. Shareholders would have gotten about $10/share. Now they have about 260M shares or so out. $100M in debt? but Afrezza sales are looking very bleak, The same $1B would be about $3.60/share today Appreciate - If this were to happen - I basically lose everything I invested. WAY over leveraged in this co - but - I REALLY believed in the science. The thing I have learned from this adventure so far ---- you can have the absolutely BEST widget but if it is not marketed / managed properly - it can still fail! |
|
|
|
Post by bigchungus91354 on Apr 12, 2019 10:36:22 GMT -5
Depends on sale price, debt, shares outstanding etc. Last year this co had 100M shares and ~$200M in debt. I think they could have gotten over $1B. Shareholders would have gotten about $10/share. Now they have about 260M shares or so out. $100M in debt? but Afrezza sales are looking very bleak, The same $1B would be about $3.60/share today Appreciate - If this were to happen - I basically lose everything I invested. WAY over leveraged in this co - but - I REALLY believed in the science. The thing I have learned from this adventure so far ---- you can have the absolutely BEST widget but if it is not marketed / managed properly - it can still fail! Well, we do have a great widget, but even if the mgmt could deliver they don't have the resources left to get this anywhere. I think that they are aware of this fact. I'm betting they will strike up a deal very soon that puts Afrezza in the hands of a BP with deep pockets and people on the ground. Whether that be a partnership or sale, or however they do it, they will need another, roughly, billion dollars at this point to launch Afrezza to where it needs to be. |
|
|
|
Post by hopingandwilling on Apr 12, 2019 10:43:48 GMT -5
Why would anyone pay us $1billion dollars for the company? They sold the world-wide rights for Afrezza to Sanofi for $150 million and even agreed to pay Sanofi 30% of their marketing expenses. I think it times for everyone to start looking at the reality that the TV ads investments has not increased prescriptions. If TV ads can't turn around prescriptions, what can a new owner do that is different? Just asking!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Apr 12, 2019 11:07:39 GMT -5
I am not advocating for either the sale of Afrezza or the company. And for the record, I never thought TV ads would be the answer. They are necessary to a degree for reasons I have previously posted. And you statement is really apples to oranges when you compare the past Sanofi rights payments for a then new Afrezza to the valuation of the whole company today.
Nonetheless, in answer to your question a lot has changed since Sanofi bought and then terminated their deal with mnkd. Consider the following has happened since mnkd received back the rights to Afrezza:
1. Rev has increased over Sanofi peak many times over on less marketing spend
2. ADA/SOC has become slightly more positive towards Afrezza
3. The Stat Study proves the benefits of Afrezza
4. Tresiba was launched and when paired with Afrezza appears to give significantly better than normal results
5. CGM's have become much more main stream with much more room for growth, showing the beneifts of Afrezza in real time and for TIR
6. The Facebook page and other social media adopters are growing
7. The tritation issues and lung test issues are no longer issues
8. Vdex has emerged to support what everyone knows about Afrezza's effectiveness.
9. Peds study is well underway
10. Dr. K was hired
11. JDRF, diatribe and other major diabetes orgs have come out in support of Afrezza, no longer in doubt by them
12. One drop partnership
13. People on Afrezza have dropped the pump in favor of a cgm
As for the company:
1. Debt has been significantly reduced
2. Company now has a sales force (effectiveness is up for debate to be candid)
3. Uthr deal with first milestone validating TS and the deal itself
4. UTHR has said Trep T will replace current Tyvaso
5. RLS is progressing
6. Second Uthr moecule on the horizon
7. Hundreds of patents good into the 2030's
8. State of the art production facility
Am sure there is more but all more than enough to justify moving forward with either Afrezza and/or the company. I personally would like to wait on judgement about Afrezza until after approved and on the market for peds to see the reaction on sales 12 months out from that.
The "great" Steve Balmer (I say great with my tounge firmly planted in my cheek) once said about the iPhone upon its introduction, "No one will ever want or buy one of those." And so we go with Afrezza, early adopters continue to use it while new adopters continue to on board.... GLTAL's!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bigchungus91354 on Apr 12, 2019 11:13:54 GMT -5
Why would anyone pay us $1billion dollars for the company? They sold the world-wide rights for Afrezza to Sanofi for $150 million and even agreed to pay Sanofi 30% of their marketing expenses. I think it times for everyone to start looking at the reality that the TV ads investments has not increased prescriptions. If TV ads can't turn around prescriptions, what can a new owner do that is different? Just asking!!! I didn't say that I thought that we would get $1B today, but I do think that $600-800M is possible. The TV ads probably aren't the right markets or the right ads. Plus BP could leverage existing reps that already have established relationships and are already detailing other products. Someone with cash and experience would be way more effective than...this. |
|
