|
Post by mytakeonit on Apr 18, 2019 13:59:08 GMT -5
This board really drives me crazy ... we are going up ... we are going down ... etc.
The key tells are ... peppy is saying her boat is about to sail ... and liane plans to retire in 2020. That means that 2019 is the turn around year AND in 2020 we won't need this board anymore because longs will be spending all their time counting money. BIG $$$ !!!
But, that's mytakeonit
|
|
|
Post by dh4mizzou on Apr 18, 2019 14:10:51 GMT -5
This board has debated at length the potential causes for the slow Rx growth, with insurance, marketing and uninformed doctors as the lead talking points. Afrezza may simply rest in what is described in the business literature as "The No Profit Zone"; there are lots of examples across all industries. Afrezza has its charms, no doubt, but it comes at a very high price relative to other options and managed care companies do not seem inclined to pay up for the additional value-added features, and physicians do not seem to convinced enough in the incremental benefits of Afrezza to fight the battle either. Afrezza has a high manufacturing cost relative to competitors, and even at higher production volume the cost disparity will remain, and the competition has started to retreat on recent price increases in face of public and Congressional criticism. When entrenched competitors have an absolute cost advantage and are rolling back pricing to earlier levels, the opportunity to ever make money on Afrezza may well be unachievable. That leaves the pipeline. Any drug that comes out of the pipeline effort will have the same manufacturing cost disadvantage as Afrezza, but inhaled delivery is a bigger deal for some drugs than for others. If MNKD carefully targets indications where inhalation provides a significant therapeutic advantage, there might be a workable strategy to turn the company around. If MNKD pursues formulations for any generic medication without regard to the increase in therapeutic benefit, they will likely not be successful. TreT is a good example of a drug where the increase in therapeutic benefit may outweigh the additional cost of production, epinephrine is not. You're not taking into account the back-end savings from using Afrezza. A reduction in diabetes related maladies. Imagine how much could be saved when folks don't have to go through amputations, are stopped from going blind, etc. Do insurance companies pay a little more up front to save much more on the back end?
We may never see the fruits of this drug because of a concerted effort to kill it but don't sell it short (which I presume you already have LOL).
|
|
|
Post by liane on Apr 18, 2019 16:03:18 GMT -5
This board really drives me crazy ... we are going up ... we are going down ... etc. The key tells are ... peppy is saying her boat is about to sail ... and liane plans to retire in 2020. That means that 2019 is the turn around year AND in 2020 we won't need this board anymore because longs will be spending all their time counting money. BIG $$$ !!! But, that's mytakeonit News to me, but I won't argue.
|
|
|
Next Move
Apr 18, 2019 16:11:04 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 18, 2019 16:11:04 GMT -5
This board really drives me crazy ... we are going up ... we are going down ... etc. The key tells are ... peppy is saying her boat is about to sail ... and liane plans to retire in 2020. That means that 2019 is the turn around year AND in 2020 we won't need this board anymore because longs will be spending all their time counting money. BIG $$$ !!! But, that's mytakeonit News to me, but I won't argue. I thought that was your plan also...from another post:-) My fave bullish post of the day.
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Apr 18, 2019 16:12:38 GMT -5
Shhh ... must be a secret.
But, that's mytakeonit
|
|
|
Post by liane on Apr 18, 2019 16:18:59 GMT -5
I don't recall ever putting a date on it. I'd be quite happy if it could be 2020, but not holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Apr 18, 2019 16:35:06 GMT -5
Afrezza may simply rest in what is described in the business literature as "The No Profit Zone"; there are lots of examples across all industries. Afrezza has its charms, no doubt, but it comes at a very high price relative to other options and managed care companies do not seem inclined to pay up for the additional value-added features, and physicians do not seem to convinced enough in the incremental benefits of Afrezza to fight the battle either. Afrezza has a high manufacturing cost relative to competitors, and even at higher production volume the cost disparity will remain, and the competition has started to retreat on recent price increases in face of public and Congressional criticism. When entrenched competitors have an absolute cost advantage and are rolling back pricing to earlier levels, the opportunity to ever make money on Afrezza may well be unachievable. That leaves the pipeline. Any drug that comes out of the pipeline effort will have the same manufacturing cost disadvantage as Afrezza, but inhaled delivery is a bigger deal for some drugs than for others. If MNKD carefully targets indications where inhalation provides a significant therapeutic advantage, there might be a workable strategy to turn the company around. If MNKD pursues formulations for any generic medication without regard to the increase in therapeutic benefit, they will likely not be successful. TreT is a good example of a drug where the increase in therapeutic benefit may outweigh the additional cost of production, epinephrine is not. You're not taking into account the back-end savings from using Afrezza. A reduction in diabetes related maladies. Imagine how much could be saved when folks don't have to go through amputations, are stopped from going blind, etc. Do insurance companies pay a little more up front to save much more on the back end?
We may never see the fruits of this drug because of a concerted effort to kill it but don't sell it short (which I presume you already have LOL).
Wait, so matt is the one who retired early? (I was going to put matt all in caps for emphasis, but then I thought better of it as I figured someone would then accuse me of being SO based on comments made in another thread. LOL.)
|
|
|
Post by liane on Apr 18, 2019 16:37:57 GMT -5
I don't recall ever putting a date on it. I'd be quite happy if it could be 2020, but not holding my breath. I'll be visiting in 2020; doubt I can retire that soon.
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Apr 18, 2019 17:25:11 GMT -5
Afrezza may simply rest in what is described in the business literature as "The No Profit Zone"; there are lots of examples across all industries. Afrezza has its charms, no doubt, but it comes at a very high price relative to other options and managed care companies do not seem inclined to pay up for the additional value-added features, and physicians do not seem to convinced enough in the incremental benefits of Afrezza to fight the battle either. Afrezza has a high manufacturing cost relative to competitors, and even at higher production volume the cost disparity will remain, and the competition has started to retreat on recent price increases in face of public and Congressional criticism. When entrenched competitors have an absolute cost advantage and are rolling back pricing to earlier levels, the opportunity to ever make money on Afrezza may well be unachievable. That leaves the pipeline. Any drug that comes out of the pipeline effort will have the same manufacturing cost disadvantage as Afrezza, but inhaled delivery is a bigger deal for some drugs than for others. If MNKD carefully targets indications where inhalation provides a significant therapeutic advantage, there might be a workable strategy to turn the company around. If MNKD pursues formulations for any generic medication without regard to the increase in therapeutic benefit, they will likely not be successful. TreT is a good example of a drug where the increase in therapeutic benefit may outweigh the additional cost of production, epinephrine is not. You're not taking into account the back-end savings from using Afrezza. A reduction in diabetes related maladies. Imagine how much could be saved when folks don't have to go through amputations, are stopped from going blind, etc. Do insurance companies pay a little more up front to save much more on the back end?
We may never see the fruits of this drug because of a concerted effort to kill it but don't sell it short (which I presume you already have LOL).
Answer: They do not. Not a good thing, but reality.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Apr 18, 2019 17:40:45 GMT -5
Afrezza may simply rest in what is described in the business literature as "The No Profit Zone"; there are lots of examples across all industries. Afrezza has its charms, no doubt, but it comes at a very high price relative to other options and managed care companies do not seem inclined to pay up for the additional value-added features, and physicians do not seem to convinced enough in the incremental benefits of Afrezza to fight the battle either. Afrezza has a high manufacturing cost relative to competitors, and even at higher production volume the cost disparity will remain, and the competition has started to retreat on recent price increases in face of public and Congressional criticism. When entrenched competitors have an absolute cost advantage and are rolling back pricing to earlier levels, the opportunity to ever make money on Afrezza may well be unachievable. ... You're not taking into account the back-end savings from using Afrezza. A reduction in diabetes related maladies. Imagine how much could be saved when folks don't have to go through amputations, are stopped from going blind, etc. Do insurance companies pay a little more up front to save much more on the back end? ... The problem is that insurance companies are incentivized to only pay attention to the short term because they are measured on their next quarters numbers. Doing what is talked about here will significant reduce the profitability of the insurer probably for the better part of a decade. Worst still from their point of view ten years down the line when there would be fewer complications and lower costs and who gains that saving - likely not the insurer who took the hit given churn. Insurance companies act in the interest of their shareholders, not the insured. The first concern of an insurer is minimizing immediate costs to improve the next quarters numbers.
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Apr 18, 2019 17:45:30 GMT -5
Is there an ignore feature on proboard. I want to make that my next move. I followed your lead today and made that my next move. I can certainly hear all those voices with a quick perusal of every/any other forum and we now know why.
|
|
|
Post by letitride on Apr 18, 2019 19:26:36 GMT -5
Its been a pleasure I know feces occurs but theres no need to wallow in it.
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Apr 19, 2019 0:11:42 GMT -5
Afrezza may simply rest in what is described in the business literature as "The No Profit Zone"; there are lots of examples across all industries. Afrezza has its charms, no doubt, but it comes at a very high price relative to other options and managed care companies do not seem inclined to pay up for the additional value-added features, and physicians do not seem to convinced enough in the incremental benefits of Afrezza to fight the battle either. Afrezza has a high manufacturing cost relative to competitors, and even at higher production volume the cost disparity will remain, and the competition has started to retreat on recent price increases in face of public and Congressional criticism. When entrenched competitors have an absolute cost advantage and are rolling back pricing to earlier levels, the opportunity to ever make money on Afrezza may well be unachievable. That leaves the pipeline. Any drug that comes out of the pipeline effort will have the same manufacturing cost disadvantage as Afrezza, but inhaled delivery is a bigger deal for some drugs than for others. If MNKD carefully targets indications where inhalation provides a significant therapeutic advantage, there might be a workable strategy to turn the company around. If MNKD pursues formulations for any generic medication without regard to the increase in therapeutic benefit, they will likely not be successful. TreT is a good example of a drug where the increase in therapeutic benefit may outweigh the additional cost of production, epinephrine is not. You're not taking into account the back-end savings from using Afrezza. A reduction in diabetes related maladies. Imagine how much could be saved when folks don't have to go through amputations, are stopped from going blind, etc. Do insurance companies pay a little more up front to save much more on the back end?
We may never see the fruits of this drug because of a concerted effort to kill it but don't sell it short (which I presume you already have LOL).
This is my favorite post of the year. "Please sir, don't cut off my toe", "shut up and eat your gruel!" Happy Easter all! Especially you Matt! Ever make money on afrezza...............
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Apr 19, 2019 1:14:19 GMT -5
You all know, it's my time, me time, I own the board now! Unless of course my wife kicks me off.....but still........I'm the boss of me!!! Oh never mind, I have to go to bed now.
|
|
|
Next Move
Apr 19, 2019 6:43:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by cjm18 on Apr 19, 2019 6:43:53 GMT -5
You're not taking into account the back-end savings from using Afrezza. A reduction in diabetes related maladies. Imagine how much could be saved when folks don't have to go through amputations, are stopped from going blind, etc. Do insurance companies pay a little more up front to save much more on the back end?
We may never see the fruits of this drug because of a concerted effort to kill it but don't sell it short (which I presume you already have LOL).
This is my favorite post of the year. "Please sir, don't cut off my toe", "shut up and eat your gruel!" Happy Easter all! Especially you Matt! Ever make money on afrezza............... Medicare picks up the tab when the disease gets out of hand.
|
|