|
Post by itellthefuture777 on Jan 23, 2019 12:30:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Jan 23, 2019 12:56:05 GMT -5
Seems like a great opportunity for Mike to have time at the podium to share his unique perspective and to give Afrezza significant new exposure.
|
|
|
Post by careful2invest on Jan 23, 2019 13:30:05 GMT -5
Seems like a great opportunity for Mike to have time at the podium to share his unique perspective and to give Afrezza significant new exposure. Let’s hope that Mike is already on the case! GLTA LONGS!
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Jan 23, 2019 13:34:23 GMT -5
Mike seems to be an opportunistic thinker and if he sees a cost effective way to advance the cause of afrezza I am sure he will reach out as he has proven he stays on top of the issues of the day with insulin and afrezza. Also it must fit within mnkd strategy as they may not want to call attention to their pricing even though it would seem justified for numerous reasons from a business stand point. 1. Company is in its infancy 2. Company has not yet recouped over $2.5B spent to develop and market afrezza 3. A vastly superior product 4. Company is not yet profitable Etc...
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jan 23, 2019 17:11:24 GMT -5
It certainly would provide a venue for Castagna to blast the current drug industry system where insurers and Plan Benefits Managers reap $billions in rebates and incentives to put roadblocks in place against smaller competitors that could provide more cost-effective medicines.
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Jan 23, 2019 17:21:31 GMT -5
It certainly would provide a venue for Castagna to blast the current drug industry system where insurers and Plan Benefits Managers reap $billions in rebates and incentives to put roadblocks in place against smaller competitors that could provide more cost-effective medicines. agree MN but also has he be certain no backlash on afrezza pricing.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jan 23, 2019 17:29:29 GMT -5
It’s true that the CEO doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on from a pricing standpoint.
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Jan 23, 2019 18:43:38 GMT -5
It’s true that the CEO doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on from a pricing standpoint. I got the impression from his comments that the pricing is a result of the PBM and rebate requirements. Essentially, if you want to play, you have to pay. I'd be curious what Afrezza could be priced at and still get a return on the 2+ billion dollars that's been invested if the roadblocks to better insurance coverage and rebates were removed from the equation. "Mr. Chairman, I am here today to let you know that we can cut our prices in half if the artificial barriers to entry into the marketplace were removed." Now the question is how do you break it up. The pharmacy giants and PBMs are getting married faster than members of a religious cult with knowledge of the coming apocalypse.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jan 23, 2019 19:24:59 GMT -5
Good point! That would fly.
|
|
|
Post by itellthefuture777 on Jan 23, 2019 22:43:02 GMT -5
I think we can all agree..max price point has been hit by large Pharma..they can't go higher..indeed will have to go lowerer..Since 2012 really they were flatlining..growth was from raising prices not increasing sells beyond the 12%..by 2014..to 2018..price increases to stay afloat..now in 2019..Afrezza a prandial insulin or meal time insulin...is a growth machine..and 72% of diabetics would only need Afrezza...which is more economical to make then existing insulins..superior..less expensive..growth by sells..not price raising..hmm innovative
|
|
|
Post by boca1girl on Jan 24, 2019 8:18:15 GMT -5
I think we can all agree..max price point has been hit by large Pharma..they can't go higher..indeed will have to go lowerer..Since 2012 really they were flatlining..growth was from raising prices not increasing sells beyond the 12%..by 2014..to 2018..price increases to stay afloat..now in 2019..Afrezza a prandial insulin or meal time insulin...is a growth machine..and 72% of diabetics would only need Afrezza...which is more economical to make then existing insulins..superior..less expensive..growth by sells..not price raising..hmm innovative “...more economical to make then existing insulins”... I thought the Afrezza manufacturing process is more expensive than the process for existing insulins?
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jan 24, 2019 8:41:54 GMT -5
I dug into manufacturing costs several years ago when Al Mann and then Matt Pfeffer were CEO. If the plant were running at full capacity the profit margin would be approximately 75%-80%. Pfeffer couldn't come right out and announce that figure, but he did indicate that my estimate was very close. The problem today is simply economies of scale caused by low sales.
|
|
|
Post by itellthefuture777 on Jan 24, 2019 9:03:45 GMT -5
I think we can all agree..max price point has been hit by large Pharma..they can't go higher..indeed will have to go lowerer..Since 2012 really they were flatlining..growth was from raising prices not increasing sells beyond the 12%..by 2014..to 2018..price increases to stay afloat..now in 2019..Afrezza a prandial insulin or meal time insulin...is a growth machine..and 72% of diabetics would only need Afrezza...which is more economical to make then existing insulins..superior..less expensive..growth by sells..not price raising..hmm innovative “...more economical to make then existing insulins”... I thought the Afrezza manufacturing process is more expensive than the process for existing insulins? Why would it be more expensive? Remember the Insulin monomers do not have to be zinc bonded to stabilize them as they do with all the other older more expensive insulins...as Afrezza being Monomer self assembles onto a known inert nano particle..without the zinc bonding cost..and the insulin lost in that old process is pretty significant..it has always been more efficient to make a dry powder than the liquid..which I see now isn't obvoius but true..
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jan 24, 2019 11:30:51 GMT -5
“...more economical to make then existing insulins”... I thought the Afrezza manufacturing process is more expensive than the process for existing insulins? Why would it be more expensive? Remember the Insulin monomers do not have to be zinc bonded to stabilize them as they do with all the other older more expensive insulins...as Afrezza being Monomer self assembles onto a known inert nano particle..without the zinc bonding cost..and the insulin lost in that old process is pretty significant..it has always been more efficient to make a dry powder than the liquid..which I see now isn't obvoius but true.. You are way over-thinking this. Insulin is produced from genetically modified E-Coli and the cost is is cleaning up the output which is the same whether you are talking about human insulin or RAA. Mannkind buy their insulin from AMPH and that cost is buried in the price. At this point RAA is ready for packaging, however Mannkind now need to do the drying and assembly process before they can package the insulin. Mannkind have the cost of that extra step as well as the API insulin manufacturer's profit margin. Then there is the scale and the maturity of the RAA process... There is no way Afrezza can get it's costs as low as RAA, but it can get close at volume.
|
|
bac
Lab Rat
Posts: 37
|
Post by bac on Jan 24, 2019 12:06:36 GMT -5
i tellthefuture777You said “Afrezza…which is more economical to make than existing insulins…” boca1girl replied “I thought the Afrezza manufacturing process is more expensive than the process for existing insulins?” I think you both are missing the elephants in the room. The elephants are: • Afrezza requires more than four times the insulin units per day than injected insulin. See the reference below, Figure 1 C which applies to T1Ds. (My uneducated guess is that insulin-resistant T2Ds will need more, hence the need for the 24 unit cartridge of Afrezza.) • MannKind can now only buy insulin from one supplier (Amphastar) that has the only FDA-approved insulin for Afrezza. (How can this sole source of Afrezza insulin lead to a more economical manufacturing process? Long-term MannKind needs to manufacture insulin in-house.) REFERENCE: “Inhaled Technosphere Insulin Compared With Injected Prandial Insulin in Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized 24-Week Trial”, Diabetes Care, Volume 38, December 2015, Bruce W. Bode et all, care.diabetesjournals.org/content/38/12/2266.long
This reference to a 24 week study of T1D’s contains Figure 1 C. All MNKD longs need to study Figure 1 C. (ProBoards do not allow me to include figures in my posts) Figure 1 C -- mean daily dose of prandial insulin in the TI-Gen2 (dreamboat) and insulin aspart (Humalog) groups The top curve is Afrezza and the bottom is Humalog. Note that Afrezza doses are (U) and Humalog doses are (IU). Since Afrezza is a powder and Humalog a liquid, reference authors used these different units but they both refer to the same amount of insulin. (Someone check me on this!) (For reference, 1 IU = 0.0347 mg human insulin.) Referring to Figure 1 top (Afrezza) curve, at week twelve the daily dose is 107.4 units (from the reference text). Referring to Figure 1 bottom (Humalog) curve, at week twelve the daily dose is 25.6 IU (from the reference text: 23.5 IU at randomization and increased 9.1% during the first 12 weeks of randomized treatment.)
|
|