|
|
Post by peppy on Nov 21, 2015 14:53:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hankscorpio7 on Nov 21, 2015 15:15:55 GMT -5
Ha! There was a heated thread on this months ago with a lot of FUDster labeling but the real costs were never posted. I assumed it to mean Afrezza was confirmed a luxury over competitors and they didn't want to advertise. Hope your efforts are more informative. It was unfortunate how readily it was dismissed. People see a difference of $100/month and think it no big deal for an arguably superior product. If money is tight, you can suffer more- you can't make more money. Ultimately, it still will be insurance coverage that is the limiting factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Nov 21, 2015 15:18:48 GMT -5
Let's light this stick of dynamite. Afrezza is non inferior!
Let's look.
This...POS screencast.com/t/TgbL5C2B64
(United health rumbling in the news lately.)
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Nov 21, 2015 15:51:51 GMT -5
Interesting article. I like insulin nation. insulinnation.com/treatment2/medicine-drugs/understanding-insulin-sticker-shock/
Sanofi increased the price of its Lantus insulin twice in 2013, raising the cost by as much as 15%, according to a Bloomberg News report. Novo Nordisk also increased the price of its long-acting insulin, Levemir. Sanofi maintains the dominant market share on long-acting insulin and can dictate price, Kliff says.
drug companies are using price increases on everyday drugs like high blood pressure medication and insulin to counter a drop in overall drug sales. Pharma executives admitted this as far back as 2011 during a Reuters Health Summit. And according to the Bloomberg report,
In January 2014, Sanofi sued Eli Lilly and Co. for copyright infringement to block a generic version of its popular Lantus insulin. According to a Reuters report, Lilly had informed the FDA that it did not plan on selling its version of insulin glargine until after the patent for Lantus ran out in February 2015. Instead, Sanofi’s lawsuit triggered an FDA rule that automatically blocks the government from approving the Lilly drug for 30 months, a window which would potentially buy Sanofi more time to switch its customers to a new form of Lantus.
“The pharmacist told me the list price is 188.11 (per vial) and I get 10% off that,” says Cook, a computer programmer who lives in Cedar Hills, Utah. “However if I didn’t use a coupon from the Apidra website and get the 10% and have insurance, I would pay…more like 250.00 per bottle.”
Because Cook has not yet met the $2,000 yearly deductible on his insurance plan, his out-of-pocket expense for insulin is higher now than it will be later in the year. Once he surpasses his deductible, the price will dip down to $40 a vial for Apidra. Cook says when he reaches that threshold, he then tries to stock up on insulin by refilling it as quickly as his insurance plan will allow.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Nov 21, 2015 16:10:18 GMT -5
I started reading about this and I am a postaholic Most Medicare drug plans have a coverage gap (also called a donut hole). This means after you and your drug plan have spent a certain amount for covered drugs, in 2015, you are responsible for paying 45% of the plan's cost for covered brand name prescription drugs and 65% of the cost for generic drugs while you are in the coverage gap. In 2016, you are responsible for paying 45% of the plan's cost for covered brand name prescription drugs and 58% of the cost for generic drugs while you are in the coverage gap. As a result of the Affordable Care Act, additional savings will occur each year for people in the coverage gap through 2020, when the gap will not exist anymore. In 2015, once you have spent a total of $4,700 out-of-pocket ($4,850 in 2016), you will come out of the coverage gap. This includes what's spent before and during the coverage gap. Once you are out of the coverage gap, you will automatically have "catastrophic coverage." This means you will only pay a small amount for covered drugs for the rest of the year. Contact Medicare or your prescription drug plan to learn more. - See more at: www.diabetes.org/living-with-diabetes/health-insurance/medicare.html#sthash.VVICaGDU.dpuf
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Nov 21, 2015 16:44:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Nov 21, 2015 16:50:02 GMT -5
so my quick take is afrezza is twice the monthly cost.
Tell me.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Nov 21, 2015 17:25:50 GMT -5
if afrezza cost $300/ month Approximately 1.25 million American children and adults have type 1 diabetes. - See more at: www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/#sthash.1CyjX4QJ.dpuf100,000 users 1/10 of the type 1's x $300/month = 30 million per month/ 360,000,000 a year. so far 2000 users? at 500 a month = 1 million per month 12 million per year Now that the physicians are all prepared for the roll out, my quick take is a price drop and a tv ad would do the trick. |
|
|
|
Post by mssciguy on Nov 21, 2015 17:28:55 GMT -5
if afrezza cost $300/ month Approximately 1.25 million American children and adults have type 1 diabetes. - See more at: www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/#sthash.1CyjX4QJ.dpuf100,000 users 1/10 of the type 1's x $300/month = 30 million per month/ 360,000,000 a year. so far 2000 users? at 500 a month = 1 million per month 12 million per year Now that the physicians are all prepared for the roll out, my quick take is a price drop and a tv ad would do the trick. Yep, knock down the price, go for volume, advertise on TV like everyone has been saying. Who knows what SNY is doing? We can only hope that they're ready to negotiate on price for greater coverage. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Nov 21, 2015 17:42:09 GMT -5
What the heck was Sanofi thinking at this price point and non-inferior?
A cheap sabotage.
I have found the snuck in the woods. Took me long enough. I'm slow. |
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Nov 21, 2015 17:49:42 GMT -5
Sorry mods for all the discussion...
That's what I don't get though. What is SNY's plan?! Afrezza is an FDA-approved, viable drug, that's getting amazing results. While I understand they have first priority for acquisition of Afrezza rights, why would they sandbag it? Work on the label, get it changed, if you can't, lower the price and let word of mouth speak of the things the label can't. But they've spent all this money bringing Afrezza to market to leave it at the 2 yard line?
Wish we had access to SNY's war room. They're either negligent, stupid, or being patient while the trials are completing. Just wish we knew which it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Nov 21, 2015 18:03:37 GMT -5
Crazy talk; over on the other thread, they are talking about sanofi dropping us.
Tell me what is wrong with my thinking.
I can see a case where, we want out of sanofi. we need to be priced right.
the ground work done at some level and we do not have to pay them back for 10 years.
We have the insulin and a contract.
hmmm
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Nov 21, 2015 18:43:08 GMT -5
Crazy talk; over on the other thread, they are talking about sanofi dropping us. Tell me what is wrong with my thinking. I can see a case where, we want out of sanofi. we need to be priced right. the ground work done at some level and we do not have to pay them back for 10 years. We have the insulin and a contract. hmmm Peppy, I'm one of those who believes that gettiing the product back from a Sanofi could be a windfall. 1. We keep the $200 million that they gave us. 2. The $125 million start up expenses for the launch - 65% of which was paid for by Sanofi accrues to our benefit at no charge (except for the money we owe Sanofi) 3. Sanofi's 65% ownership interest in Afrezza accrues to Mannkind at no charge. 4. The $45 million that Mannkind owes to Sanofi doesn't have to repaid for 10 years. 5. Mannkind will have complete control over the distribution of Afrezza and can control there own destiny. If Mannkind needed to raise addition capital to support this windfall, I would jump off the fence and add to my position. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by ezrasfund on Nov 21, 2015 18:51:15 GMT -5
MannKind did say that the price would be much closer (+10%) to RAA pens, but Sanofi has priced it much higher, maybe as a bargaining chip with insurance companies. It also turns out to be an imperfect comparison because of very different dosing protocols. That being said, Afrezza does not seem to be very expensive to manufacture and gross margins are more than ample.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2015 18:53:44 GMT -5
Crazy talk; over on the other thread, they are talking about sanofi dropping us. Tell me what is wrong with my thinking. I can see a case where, we want out of sanofi. we need to be priced right. the ground work done at some level and we do not have to pay them back for 10 years. We have the insulin and a contract. hmmm Peppy, I'm one of those who believes that gettiing the product back from a Sanofi could be a windfall. 1. We keep the $200 million that they gave us. 2. The $125 million start up expenses for the launch - 65% of which was paid for by Sanofi accrues to our benefit at no charge (except for the money we owe Sanofi) 3. Sanofi's 65% ownership interest in Afrezza accrues to Mannkind at no charge. 4. The $45 million that Mannkind owes to Sanofi doesn't have to repaid for 10 years. 5. Mannkind will have complete control over the distribution of Afrezza and can control there own destiny. If Mannkind needed to raise addition capital to support this windfall, I would jump off the fence and add to my position. Trend Payor negotiation ( formulary placements) and trials needed /mandated by FDA are important things that SNY is needed for. We all know MNKD had trouble even designing the trials..lol.. if the trials were originally designed for superior label, we wouldnt be in this position.. and market is not only US .. Rest of the world? MNKD has no resources/expertise outside of US. You talk about distribution control..thats Sanofi's. MNKD has no distrubtion , but its relatively small issue as it can be outsourced ( but $$$) so we can put the thought that MNKD can go solo to rest....when MNKD had to dilute 10% to get by the next qtr.. Be realistic - not emotional |
|
