|
Post by itellthefuture777 on Jan 15, 2019 3:19:38 GMT -5
I’d also wondered about pricing (of things) in general. I was looking into snake bites, and came across “According to Boyer's model, a single vial of antivenom that would cost more than $14,000 in the United States would cost $100 to $200 in Mexico.” Makes you wonder how the “system” got the way it is. And, how Afrezza will be priced outside the USA. My guess is..Mannkind's Afrezza is so economical to make..at small quantities they are already making a profit..with larger bulk sizes..not if..but when reached..will be in a controlling global domimate position..cornering the market...and be able to lower prices..that no one else can match...(a glimpse)
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Jan 15, 2019 3:46:15 GMT -5
I’d also wondered about pricing (of things) in general. I was looking into snake bites, and came across “According to Boyer's model, a single vial of antivenom that would cost more than $14,000 in the United States would cost $100 to $200 in Mexico.” Makes you wonder how the “system” got the way it is. And, how Afrezza will be priced outside the USA. My guess is..Mannkind's Afrezza is so economical to make..at small quantities they are already making a profit..with larger bulk sizes..not if..but when reached..will be in a controlling global domimate position..cornering the market...and be able to lower prices..that no one else can match...(a glimpse) That's an interesting "guess" about pricing. Not sure any of us really have enough details to do anything other than guess (wish) about that. But totally agree with your wish about "larger bulk sizes"... that would be good regardless of COGS details. All of us hoping for more bulk with regard to sales.
|
|
|
Post by boca1girl on Jan 15, 2019 8:28:34 GMT -5
Oh, here we are ... looks like Mannkind dodged that bullet: www.cnbc.com/2019/01/14/house-democrats-launch-drug-pricing-probe-on-a-dozen-companies.html"Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., sent letters to AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Mallinckrodt, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi and Teva Pharmaceuticals seeking detailed information and documents about the companies' pricing practices." I agree with the comments that say that this is a missed opportunity to showcase Afrezza and explain how the system works against consumers, on a national platform.
|
|
|
Post by itellthefuture777 on Jan 15, 2019 15:24:37 GMT -5
My guess is..Mannkind's Afrezza is so economical to make..at small quantities they are already making a profit..with larger bulk sizes..not if..but when reached..will be in a controlling global domimate position..cornering the market...and be able to lower prices..that no one else can match...(a glimpse) That's an interesting "guess" about pricing. Not sure any of us really have enough details to do anything other than guess (wish) about that. But totally agree with your wish about "larger bulk sizes"... that would be good regardless of COGS details. All of us hoping for more bulk with regard to sales. I still remember when Mannkind paid $3 million in cash for $10 billion worth of insulin on June 22, 2009 from Pfizer...Pfizer also was going to sell Mannkind the German factory for an all stock deal but Sanofi had first rights to the factory..when they took it..I knew then..they blinked..they would be the partner...also..Sanofi still is maintaining those Afrezza NDC codes..why..hmmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Jan 15, 2019 15:35:52 GMT -5
Please don't even hint that Sanofi could remotely be involved in the future. That's not nice
|
|
|
Post by mango on Jan 15, 2019 19:28:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by itellthefuture777 on Jan 15, 2019 20:00:49 GMT -5
Afrezza pricing then must be justified by..patient outcomes..reduced hypo's and positive clinical trial data..says a lot..I wonder how under questioning if they ask..how can you charge more than Afrezza..that has better outcomes and isn't a massive bulk insulin buyer when all of you stocked up on insulin for 3 months causing higher cost of insulin and yet..Afrezza is less costing than most of you even though it is a monopoly? Ohhhh!
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Jan 15, 2019 20:10:06 GMT -5
Afrezza pricing then must be justified by..patient outcomes..reduced hypo's and positive clinical trial data..says a lot..I wonder how under questioning if they ask..how can you charge more than Afrezza..that has better outcomes and isn't a massive bulk insulin buyer when all of you stocked up on insulin for 3 months causing higher cost of insulin and yet..Afrezza is less costing than most of you even though it is a monopoly? Ohhhh! Maybe they know there’s no meat left on the MNKD bone.
|
|
|
Post by mango on Jan 15, 2019 20:29:40 GMT -5
Afrezza pricing then must be justified by..patient outcomes..reduced hypo's and positive clinical trial data..says a lot..I wonder how under questioning if they ask..how can you charge more than Afrezza..that has better outcomes and isn't a massive bulk insulin buyer when all of you stocked up on insulin for 3 months causing higher cost of insulin and yet..Afrezza is less costing than most of you even though it is a monopoly? Ohhhh! Several, if not all, the companies listed has committed one or more serious federal crimes prior to this. One in particular, Novo Nordisk, has committed some really sinister crimes against humanity, but was allowed to pay their way out each time. MannKind's not being targeted because they haven't been engaged in illegal/criminal/unethical/unmoral behavior, and so there is simply nothing to investigate.
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Jan 15, 2019 22:01:32 GMT -5
Afrezza pricing then must be justified by..patient outcomes..reduced hypo's and positive clinical trial data..says a lot..I wonder how under questioning if they ask..how can you charge more than Afrezza..that has better outcomes and isn't a massive bulk insulin buyer when all of you stocked up on insulin for 3 months causing higher cost of insulin and yet..Afrezza is less costing than most of you even though it is a monopoly? Ohhhh! Perhaps Afrezza pricing would be considered justified since the price is below what it costs to produce. It's hard to argue 0% profit is too high.
|
|
|
Post by itellthefuture777 on Jan 15, 2019 23:13:41 GMT -5
Afrezza pricing then must be justified by..patient outcomes..reduced hypo's and positive clinical trial data..says a lot..I wonder how under questioning if they ask..how can you charge more than Afrezza..that has better outcomes and isn't a massive bulk insulin buyer when all of you stocked up on insulin for 3 months causing higher cost of insulin and yet..Afrezza is less costing than most of you even though it is a monopoly? Ohhhh! Perhaps Afrezza pricing would be considered justified since the price is below what it costs to produce. It's hard to argue 0% profit is too high. Here is what ole Al said, MANN: "This is a serious problem, but it has been created, frankly, more by our government than by anything else, driven by the hurdles of getting a drug to market. It typically takes ten to twelve years or more from the time the initial discovery is made to the time that the product is commercialized. The patent life is only twenty years from filing for that initial discovery. So companies have only maybe eight years, more or less, before the patent runs out, to recapture their investment in development costs. Now, due to generic availability, the developing basic research companies who have created these drugs have to recover their investment in only a few years. And of course, since only a small portion of drugs that enter the development cycle become successful commercially, companies even have to cover the costs of those that fail. Companies that manufacture generic drugs don’t have that problem, since they only copy and manufacture the successful drugs and do not shoulder any of the development costs. But they don’t price their products according to cost; they simply discount the existing prices. Generic drug availability has caused enormous escalation in the cost of new drugs." www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.25.w104
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Jan 15, 2019 23:22:57 GMT -5
Perhaps Afrezza pricing would be considered justified since the price is below what it costs to produce. It's hard to argue 0% profit is too high. Here is what ole Al said, MANN: "This is a serious problem, but it has been created, frankly, more by our government than by anything else, driven by the hurdles of getting a drug to market. It typically takes ten to twelve years or more from the time the initial discovery is made to the time that the product is commercialized. The patent life is only twenty years from filing for that initial discovery. So companies have only maybe eight years, more or less, before the patent runs out, to recapture their investment in development costs. Now, due to generic availability, the developing basic research companies who have created these drugs have to recover their investment in only a few years. And of course, since only a small portion of drugs that enter the development cycle become successful commercially, companies even have to cover the costs of those that fail. Companies that manufacture generic drugs don’t have that problem, since they only copy and manufacture the successful drugs and do not shoulder any of the development costs. But they don’t price their products according to cost; they simply discount the existing prices. Generic drug availability has caused enormous escalation in the cost of new drugs." www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.25.w104It would seem that mnkd could also catch a piece of that pie too. Inhaled Generics,, who woulda thunk it. If our delivery is superior to some of the ingested/injected generics, why not ?? Yep, years away, but stranger things have happened.
|
|
|
Post by brianrocco on Jan 21, 2019 12:52:35 GMT -5
Excellent discussion of pricing by Mike C under subject "Older Mnkd CEO CSI Podcast" posted 2 hours ago, also within "Articles, Media Spot, and Ads". Mike C. explained how low prices do not affect market acceptance due to the U.S. healthcare industry structure and profit making tools utilized by PBMs. This is a very insightful interview. He tells of experience with a drug that sold for half the cost of competitive drugs and after five years had 0 market share. He calls for changes in industry structure and how Mnkd is approaching the challenge. Perhaps Congress will make some changes. The problems are fairly transparent. (But then Congress can's seem to deal with a lot of problems whose solution seems obvious.)
|
|
|
Post by itellthefuture777 on Jan 21, 2019 14:27:02 GMT -5
Excellent discussion of pricing by Mike C under subject "Older Mnkd CEO CSI Podcast" posted 2 hours ago, also within "Articles, Media Spot, and Ads". Mike C. explained how low prices do not affect market acceptance due to the U.S. healthcare industry structure and profit making tools utilized by PBMs. This is a very insightful interview. He tells of experience with a drug that sold for half the cost of competitive drugs and after five years had 0 market share. He calls for changes in industry structure and how Mnkd is approaching the challenge. Perhaps Congress will make some changes. The problems are fairly transparent. (But then Congress can's seem to deal with a lot of problems whose solution seems obvious.) Seems Mike would be a great industry expert of the experts that the government is to call up that are not any of the investigated companies CEO's...based on that CSI podcast I heard..I mean Mike is like listening to a savant explaining a rubics cube cubed...it would be funny to show mike solve a rubics cube blindfolded in 5 seconds..at the end of his explination..then toss it on the table and walk out...ohhhh
|
|
|
Post by itellthefuture777 on Jan 21, 2019 18:05:03 GMT -5
Excellent discussion of pricing by Mike C under subject "Older Mnkd CEO CSI Podcast" posted 2 hours ago, also within "Articles, Media Spot, and Ads". Mike C. explained how low prices do not affect market acceptance due to the U.S. healthcare industry structure and profit making tools utilized by PBMs. This is a very insightful interview. He tells of experience with a drug that sold for half the cost of competitive drugs and after five years had 0 market share. He calls for changes in industry structure and how Mnkd is approaching the challenge. Perhaps Congress will make some changes. The problems are fairly transparent. (But then Congress can's seem to deal with a lot of problems whose solution seems obvious.) Seems Mike would be a great industry expert of the experts that the government is to call up that are not any of the investigated companies CEO's...based on that CSI podcast I heard..I mean Mike is like listening to a savant explaining a rubics cube cubed...it would be funny to show mike solve a rubics cube blindfolded in 5 seconds..at the end of his explination..then toss it on the table and walk out...ohhhh What would even be funnier..is all the CEO's are given Rubic cubes...Mike solves his tosses it on the table walks out in 5 seconds while the rest are still sitting there dumbfounded...eventually give a circle and a square peg set..and still not solving it hours later..like their drugs...Ohhhhhh..somebody stop meee ha!.
|
|