Diabetes Mgmt in Correctional Institutions - Afrezza?

[Deleted]

care.diabetesjournals.org/content/31/Supplement_1/S87.full

Snippets from the above article

At any given time, over 2 million people are incarcerated in prisons and jails in the U.S (1). It is estimated that nearly 80,000 of these inmates have diabetes, a prevalence of 4.8% (2)

Some of the concerns raised in the article

1. Reasonable syringe control systems should be established. Afrezza eliminates this

2. In the past, the recommendation that regular insulin be injected 30–45 min before meals presented a significant problem when “lock downs” or other disruptions to the normal schedule of meals and medications occurred. - Solution : Afrezza - dosed @ the start of the meal or 10/15 minutes into the meal

3. If consistent access to food within 10 min cannot be ensured, rapid-acting insulin analogs and oral agents are approved for administration during or immediately after meals. Should circumstances arise that delay patient access to regular meals following medication administration, policies and procedures must be implemented to ensure the patient receives appropriate nutrition to prevent hypoglycemia. -- Afrezza for a solution again

With a potential 80,000 Afrezza Users , possible to negotiate with formulary of Dept of Corrections citing some of the above reasons..There’s a lot of Afrezza out there waiting to be sold. Give it away @ cost – a jump in prescriptions can cause raise in share price and can raise $$$$



What better potential than 80,000 users?

[EveningOfTheDay]

I am sorry but this is absolutely delusional. Who exactly is going to pay, private companies administering prisons? Right because this people are all well known for their concern in picking the most apt treatment regardless of the cost.

Maybe one day, but not any time soon, not in this country.

[nylefty]

Dec 25, 2015 22:35:18 GMT -5 EveningOfTheDay said:

I am sorry but this is absolutely delusional. Who exactly is going to pay, private companies administering prisons? Right because this people are all well known for their concern in picking the most apt treatment regardless of the cost.

Maybe one day, but not any time soon, not in this country.

Since I don't like name-calling ("delusional"), let me come to the defense of this idea.  Private prisons house a relatively small minority of prisoners in this country and even the private companies are responsible for inmate medical care.  So are state, federal and local governments and that means paying for diabetes drugs.  If Afrezza was supplied "at cost," why wouldn't prison systems be amenable to substituting it for more expensive drugs that require needles, the use of which is very problematic in jails and prisons?

As for the private prisons, here's data from the ACLU:

Today, for-profit companies are responsible for approximately 6 percent of state prisoners, 16 percent of federal prisoners, and inmates in local jails in Texas, Louisiana, and a handful of other states.

[EveningOfTheDay]

Dec 27, 2015 21:31:24 GMT -5 nylefty said:

Dec 25, 2015 22:35:18 GMT -5 EveningOfTheDay said:

I am sorry but this is absolutely delusional. Who exactly is going to pay, private companies administering prisons? Right because this people are all well known for their concern in picking the most apt treatment regardless of the cost.

Maybe one day, but not any time soon, not in this country.

Since I don't like name-calling ("delusional"), let me come to the defense of this idea.  Private prisons house a relatively small minority of prisoners in this country and even the private companies are responsible for inmate medical care.  So are state, federal and local governments and that means paying for diabetes drugs.  If Afrezza was supplied "at cost," why wouldn't prison systems be amenable to substituting it for more expensive drugs that require needles, the use of which is very problematic in jails and prisons?

As for the private prisons, here's data from the ACLU:

Today, for-profit companies are responsible for approximately 6 percent of state prisoners, 16 percent of federal prisoners, and inmates in local jails in Texas, Louisiana, and a handful of other states.

In the unlikely hypothetical that Afrezza was supplied at cost, as you say, all other things being equal, i agree with you that private companies managing prisons would accept it. However, I seriously doubt Afrezza will be provided at cost for any population until other more lucrative markets are all explored. Therefore I do not see the scenario as relevant at all.

What I do know is that Afrezza is more expensive, considerably so, and that we still have not heard any indication from Sanofi that they will be reducing the price to make it more competitive with other RAA, something I look forward to whenever it happens. So yes, unless we are talking very long term I call this scenario, not the poster that expressed the idea, fairly delusional. Further more I do not consider calling a scenario delusional something equiparable to name-calling. I have had quite a few ideas that were totally out of touch too and when people point out the outlandish of my suggestions I have never taken it personally. With aloha.

[nylefty]

Evening: Scenarios can't be delusional. Only people can be delusional. And the idea that Afrezza could be supplied at cost was the suggestion of the original poster, not me.

And why are you focusing on for-profit prisons? The vast majority of prisons and jails are run by governments, not private companies.

[EveningOfTheDay]

This is getting very tiring professor. Ok then, not delusional but a delusion. I also already tried to explained that it would make little sense to provide Afrezza at cost and personally I do not see it happening any time soon, but feel free to disagree. Good knows that I have been wrong every step of the way about this stock. For example I never though that once Affreza had been approved the short side would be able to bring the company to its knees the way they did, even after they were advertising it loud and clear. I never thought that after 10 months in the market we would find ourselves hoping the weekly RXs gain a few percentage points instead of stagnating along. I take a little solace in the fact that not even Mannkind management, apparently, saw it coming either. Hard to tell though, with all this silence.
Anyway, you seem to be intent on picking my post as grammatically wrong, or having the wrong meaning or simply wrong and you are very welcome to keep doing so, but I really do have very little interest in engaging with you in this game. If you want to contrast points of view, I am happy to do so, but if your main interest is in semantics, I am not your man. With aloha.

PS: I do not think at current prices prisons would consider Afrezza as an option for treating diabetes, whether private or public prisons. Both on the basis of it not being the most cost effective treatment, but that is my opinion.

[agedhippie]

The answer to this is cost control. Prisons use NPH and Regular insulin, not Lantus and RAA. They are not going to use Afrezza unless it costs less than Regular which will not happen. As a shareholder I would be deeply unhappy at giving away Afrezza at cost however even then it probably would still cost more than ordinary Regular insulin.

Anyway prisons have procedures established over decades for handling syringes and drugs so that is unlikely to be a problem.

[Deleted]

giving it away at cost was something I mentioned to sound like price it accordingly.. Didn't mean it literally to give away... imagine getting 10,000 users on Symphony/IMS... lol

[mindovermatter]

Won't work. Prisoners will find a way to make a shiv out of the Dreamboat.

[factspls88]

Well it certainly is a captive audience.... 

[suebeeee1]

Imagine the control. No lying about diet or exercise. Everything witnessed and documented. Nothing left to chance.

[Deleted]

Emailed this to Matt