|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Feb 3, 2016 18:20:07 GMT -5
There certainly would be issues of whether payers would allow them to be in network if they only offered treatment that the payers didn't want to cover, but are there really regulations against not offering some therapies? That would seem odd. Providers must prescribe what they think is in the best interest of the patient's health. Of course, providers all have there go-tos... The rule can't be that hard and fast, because we all know that these days prescriptions are heavily based on what insurers will pay for. Doctors all the time have to compromise and prescribe things that they consider suboptimal merely based on the particular patients insurance. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Feb 3, 2016 18:25:02 GMT -5
It will be interesting to read the post call FAQ that Matt referenced.
That's a good best practice overall. Better yet if they are mining the threads for response to the call. They would then include the parts that people are questioning in that FAQ to mitigate. Hopefully they go further and actually do their own internal post-mortem on the call and how it was received.
Anyway.
Overall, I still like that Matt covers the really tough questions, even if I'm not 100% happy with the answers, or he missed some critical ones.
My thought on the previous Hakan calls is that it was likely he was fostering some ill will with the analysts in that they just weren't answering any real questions or giving enough insight. Other than the smarmy GS BK plugs, the analysts seem to have an easier discussion with him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2016 18:25:27 GMT -5
Much to say about nothing. My prediction is more downgrades or reconfirming bearish position by Goldman, Piper, and JP Morgan. The fact that Matt said "we're not considering bankruptcy at this time" will just provide more fodder for the short interest. But that's Matt. He always makes at least one stupid statement on the CC's, unless he's intentionally trying to sandbag the SP (which I doubt). Trend Corey basically told him he is getting down graded lol |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Feb 3, 2016 18:26:35 GMT -5
Overall, I thought the clarification was ok. Lack of news, not so much. They really need to be able to disclose something about RLS. Anyone that is hoping for any near term news on RLS, will likely be sadly disappointed for some time to come. This is a straightforward licensing deal and since the first thing MNKD would have to disclose is a milestone payment, any other rights to release info likely are with RLS, and being an arms length transaction RLS has no motivation to release any info other than on their own schedule. |
|
|
|
Post by kball on Feb 3, 2016 18:26:42 GMT -5
In case this hasn't been mentioned, iirc Matt said that a reverse merger with RLS isn't being considered at this time
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Feb 3, 2016 18:27:29 GMT -5
Much to say about nothing. My prediction is more downgrades or reconfirming bearish position by Goldman, Piper, and JP Morgan. The fact that Matt said "we're not considering bankruptcy at this time" will just provide more fodder for the short interest. But that's Matt. He always makes at least one stupid statement on the CC's, unless he's intentionally trying to sandbag the SP (which I doubt). Trend Corey basically told him he is getting down graded lol Well, I think that ship had sailed before the call. Other than some unforseen material change/news - we've watched the stock price drift up with the short sellers following the usual pattern- hype up a BO, and then short the heck out of it. 25 cents a share for a short term short is still big money for them. And they repeat this pattern at least once a quarter. |
|
|
|
Post by od on Feb 3, 2016 18:29:40 GMT -5
Providers must prescribe what they think is in the best interest of the patient's health. Of course, providers all have there go-tos... The rule can't be that hard and fast, because we all know that these days prescriptions are heavily based on what insurers will pay for. Doctors all the time have to compromise and prescribe things that they consider suboptimal merely based on the particular patients insurance. Yes, but they must be willing to prescribe any medication. What happens if a patient visits the clinic, needs to be medicated, and Afrezza is not on their formulary or they are not willing to pay cash? What happens if the patient is contraindicated for Afrezza? Yes, the patient has final choice. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Feb 3, 2016 18:30:16 GMT -5
Overall, I thought the clarification was ok. Lack of news, not so much. They really need to be able to disclose something about RLS. Anyone that is hoping for any near term news on RLS, will likely be sadly disappointed for some time to come. This is a straightforward licensing deal and since the first thing MNKD would have to disclose is a milestone payment, any other rights to release info likely are with RLS, and being an arms length transaction RLS has no motivation to release any info other than on their own schedule. I think if - back to that Xfiles like setup - if something were really known about RLS - other than Matt essentially saying, "trust me" - there wouldn't be so much hand-wringing on this. Its not so much about the deal. Its about this "Shadow Government" like profile of the company they've struck the deal with. I don't imagine MKND would remedy this. But I would think that RLS and MKND would have had some sort of agreement on this as they hashed out the deal. Surely Matt and team knew what GS and others would do with this after all those "lessons learned" from Evil Big Brother SNY. |
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Feb 3, 2016 18:31:13 GMT -5
Overall, I thought the clarification was ok. Lack of news, not so much. They really need to be able to disclose something about RLS. Anyone that is hoping for any near term news on RLS, will likely be sadly disappointed for some time to come. This is a straightforward licensing deal and since the first thing MNKD would have to disclose is a milestone payment, any other rights to release info likely are with RLS, and being an arms length transaction RLS has no motivation to release any info other than on their own schedule. The only thing is... I still don't see how the clinic manages to pay the staff. It would seem no insurer is going to put them in network, if they openly say they plan to prescribe something that the insurers don't won't to pay for. Fewer and fewer people are on insurance plans where they can go to whomever they wish. Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/posts/recent#ixzz3z9QakIHgthe clinics have to have enough 'other stuff' in the plan to help support the overhead. Always exiting (in a nail-biting kind of way) with Mnkd... How can they stay above water in 2H'16- - another TS deal is needed
- announcement of an agreement with another country
- a cash settlement with SNY at closing
|
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Feb 3, 2016 18:31:23 GMT -5
Bankruptcy note. Matt said it would be last resort but that no plans for it. My read on that "no plans" for it is he hopes that negotiation with lenders etc will help buy time but what if those lenders wish not to change the current terms? That BK as last resort is going to come into focus pretty quickly. I know some on here thing the call went well but I do not. Not at all because Matt allowed uncertainty to become a large part of the call. It's why the AH price is tanking and why tomorrow has the makings of a very bad day for the stock.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-C on Feb 3, 2016 18:32:35 GMT -5
I think it was a clear positive that they have reopened discussions with regions/countries for distributing Afrezza where FDA approvals will suffice to meet pharmaceutical regulatory requirements. The question is, can they legally even have such discussions as long as SNY holds the rights? One would think that with SNY having given notice, MNKD would be free to discuss actions which would not have an effective date until after the transfer.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Feb 3, 2016 18:33:08 GMT -5
In case this hasn't been mentioned, iirc Matt said that a reverse merger with RLS isn't being considered at this timeThat means nothing. It would be best practice to append that to any statement about intent. They give the warning at the beginning that what they say only applies to today and that they are under no obligation to update, but their legal council would recommend suspenders and belt and thus add "at this time" to any comment about what they may or may not do. BTW... anything that is good for the public company is rarely called a "reverse" merger as that usually connotes a situation where the public company has very little value left relative to the company it is merged with. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Feb 3, 2016 18:34:51 GMT -5
I think it was a clear positive that they have reopened discussions with regions/countries for distributing Afrezza where FDA approvals will suffice to meet pharmaceutical regulatory requirements. The question is, can they legally even have such discussions as long as SNY holds the rights? One would think that with SNY having given notice, MNKD would be free to discuss actions which would not have an effective date until after the transfer. The restriction on talks seems to have to do with "return of NDA". The NDA is an FDA thing. I would assume that any restrictions would only apply to FDA jurisdiction... i.e. U.S. But it sure would have been nice for them to state exactly what they can and cannot do... or more specifically can do, rather than simply the complete or partial "can't" list. |
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Feb 3, 2016 18:36:15 GMT -5
Let me say flat out that I like Matt as CEO. He's MUCH better than Hakan. That said, I don't see anything happening here for a while. They need to get out from underneath Sanofi before anything significant happens. I see the share price stagnant for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Feb 3, 2016 18:36:22 GMT -5
In case this hasn't been mentioned, iirc Matt said that a reverse merger with RLS isn't being considered at this timeThat means nothing. It would be best practice to append that to any statement about intent. They give the warning at the beginning that what they say only applies to today and that they are under no obligation to update, but their legal council would recommend suspenders and belt and thus add "at this time" to any comment about what they may or may not do. BTW... anything that is good for the public company is rarely called a "reverse" merger as that usually connotes a situation where the public company has very little value left relative to the company it is merged with. And for those who may recall - one of the more infamous mulled quotes of "at this time" was WRT to a SNY buy in. I am beginning to think that terminology is not a tell - rather - Matt's stock phrase and way of delivering it when its bolted on for compliance reasons. |
|
