|
|
Post by mnkdnewbie on Apr 30, 2016 15:09:20 GMT -5
In this article it says McKesson has the Federal Bureau of Prisons contract and India Affairs contract. You think Afrezza would solve a lot of problems with the security risks of needles in prisons. Also having to escort inmates to the infirmary 40 to 60 minutes before breakfast, lunch and dinner for a mealtime injection? I don't know just thinking outside the box for MNKD to break into the market. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdnewbie on Apr 30, 2016 15:21:15 GMT -5
In this article it says McKesson has the Federal Bureau of Prisons contract and India Affairs contract. You think Afrezza would solve a lot of problems with the security risks of needles in prisons. Also having to escort inmates to the infirmary 40 to 60 minutes before breakfast, lunch and dinner for a mealtime injection? I don't know just thinking outside the box for MNKD to break into the market. www.wfmz.com/news/poconos-coal-region/Local/Inmate-stabs-Monroe-Co-prison-guard-with-needle-officials-say/16281976
Maybe approach the corrections unions for feds and states as well as other countries and say hey we can reduce the amount of needles in prisons by introducing afrezza?
|
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 30, 2016 15:25:03 GMT -5
Hi Just to chip in on this: the outlook in the UK is that (for the NHS) the taxpayer (lets say, in this case, the English taxpayer for the NHS in England which is in effect a State in the federal UK) is the customer: the local and nation al Government is under democratic control and that's the incentive for them to spend money carefully, since a party wanting to raise more taxes is less likely (generally) to be popular with the voters. There are also independent auditors (the National Audit Office) who report on how well money is managed. Im curious about the discussion that in the US a State the Federal Government is not allowed to negotiate. Is that the case? How do your own socialised industries such as defence, police, and post office for example manage: surely contractors cant just demand whatever they want from taxpayers and get it. Can't the Government on behalf of the people contract with whoever provides the best or most cost effective products and services? I suppose if there is no public sector healthcare provider at all in the market then there is no tool by which the electorate can supply itself with a health product in competition with private offerings. (I commented above that in the UK the impression I have is that comprehensive private insurance for those who want it is rather less expensive here because if it were not, people would not bother with it (and in fact very few do with odd exceptions like me)). Interestingly, my own (rather unusual, I admit) private health insurance entitles me to go to any qualified doctor/surgeon etc anywhere in the world for treatment included in my policy EXCEPT for the USA where (if I wanted coverage) I would have to pay a large extra insurance premium - which I don't do since I just take out travel health insurance if I am visiting for a holiday or whatever). Hence I could (say) go to Canada or Switzerland if the best heart surgeon was there, but not Illinois. Thinking aloud perhaps one solution in the USA would be for private providers to have to compete for 'most preferred insurer' status at State or US level, on a fixed term basis, with the contract value assessed on sensible criteria (not just the cheapest but also quality standards etc) and that provider could get the military and Federal/State employee contracts and perhaps tax rebates in return for a contract to provide certain guaranteed standards in its products, at agreed fixed insurance premium prices. Private people could then choose that or not, depending on what they want, but it would mean at least one product available which is of a specific legally guaranteed standard. One downside of a public sector healthcare product such as the NHS is that if its truly national, you can't opt out of it: you have to pay your taxes for it, just as one has to for defence and police and so on. However that does mean that a reliable income stream is available to fund it long term and the cost is under democratic control. If I could change something here I would make private health insurance premiums tax deductible since they are not at present, but that would be very controversial. Anyhow I'll butt out of this since Im in the UK and probably speaking out of turn. I think that there are numerous possible solutions to providing healthcare in the US, and some (preferably select-able) combination of publicly available support (credits or direct assistance) and private HC Ins. should be able to satisfy most peoples situations. Yes, states, and the Fed should be able to do as you suppose above, but IMO the issue is the myriad opportunities for corrupt politicians to hijack legislation and ensure that they've cared for some special interest in return for quid pro quo. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdnewbie on Apr 30, 2016 16:07:25 GMT -5
care.diabetesjournals.org/content/31/Supplement_1/S87.full
estimated 80,000 diabetic prisoners in u.s. when this article was published, that's a whole lot of needles inside prisons.
"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. The use of multiple-dose insulin regimens using rapid-acting analogs can decrease the disruption caused by such changes in schedule. Correctional institutions should have systems in place to ensure that rapid-acting insulin analogs and oral agents are given immediately before meals if this is part of the patient’s medical plan. It should be noted however that even modest delays in meal consumption with these agents can be associated with hypoglycemia. 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."
|
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Apr 30, 2016 17:17:41 GMT -5
It would be great to see sales in both of those countries by the end of the year, or early 2017. I know Canada has been asking for it. I'm curious where you learned about Canada asking for it (Afrezza). I live in Canada and I've never heard any mention of Afrezza up here, unless it came through some U.S. source (like on CNN or FOX or Reuters or AP). For instance, this Canadian newspaper published an article about it but only because it recycles Washington Post articles: news.nationalpost.com/health/inhaled-insulin-may-eventually-mean-no-more-shotsPeople with Diabetes, (several) have been asking for Afrezza since the Febuary 2015 launch. This is one example of a tweet I could copy/paste for proof. |
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Apr 30, 2016 17:19:40 GMT -5
I'm curious where you learned about Canada asking for it (Afrezza). I live in Canada and I've never heard any mention of Afrezza up here, unless it came through some U.S. source (like on CNN or FOX or Reuters or AP). For instance, this Canadian newspaper published an article about it but only because it recycles Washington Post articles: news.nationalpost.com/health/inhaled-insulin-may-eventually-mean-no-more-shotsPeople with Diabetes, (several) have been asking for Afrezza since the Febuary 2015 launch. This is one example of a tweet I could copy/paste for proof. There have been several more people asking for Afrezza in Canada, you must be new !! |
|
|
|
Post by tayl5 on Apr 30, 2016 19:10:31 GMT -5
Hi Just to chip in on this: the outlook in the UK is that (for the NHS) the taxpayer (lets say, in this case, the English taxpayer for the NHS in England which is in effect a State in the federal UK) is the customer: the local and nation al Government is under democratic control and that's the incentive for them to spend money carefully, since a party wanting to raise more taxes is less likely (generally) to be popular with the voters. There are also independent auditors (the National Audit Office) who report on how well money is managed. Im curious about the discussion that in the US a State the Federal Government is not allowed to negotiate. Is that the case? How do your own socialised industries such as defence, police, and post office for example manage: surely contractors cant just demand whatever they want from taxpayers and get it. Can't the Government on behalf of the people contract with whoever provides the best or most cost effective products and services? I suppose if there is no public sector healthcare provider at all in the market then there is no tool by which the electorate can supply itself with a health product in competition with private offerings. (I commented above that in the UK the impression I have is that comprehensive private insurance for those who want it is rather less expensive here because if it were not, people would not bother with it (and in fact very few do with odd exceptions like me)). Interestingly, my own (rather unusual, I admit) private health insurance entitles me to go to any qualified doctor/surgeon etc anywhere in the world for treatment included in my policy EXCEPT for the USA where (if I wanted coverage) I would have to pay a large extra insurance premium - which I don't do since I just take out travel health insurance if I am visiting for a holiday or whatever). Hence I could (say) go to Canada or Switzerland if the best heart surgeon was there, but not Illinois. Thinking aloud perhaps one solution in the USA would be for private providers to have to compete for 'most preferred insurer' status at State or US level, on a fixed term basis, with the contract value assessed on sensible criteria (not just the cheapest but also quality standards etc) and that provider could get the military and Federal/State employee contracts and perhaps tax rebates in return for a contract to provide certain guaranteed standards in its products, at agreed fixed insurance premium prices. Private people could then choose that or not, depending on what they want, but it would mean at least one product available which is of a specific legally guaranteed standard. One downside of a public sector healthcare product such as the NHS is that if its truly national, you can't opt out of it: you have to pay your taxes for it, just as one has to for defence and police and so on. However that does mean that a reliable income stream is available to fund it long term and the cost is under democratic control. If I could change something here I would make private health insurance premiums tax deductible since they are not at present, but that would be very controversial. Anyhow I'll bmutt out of this since Im in the UK and probably speaking out of turn. I think that there are numerous possible solutions to providing healthcare in the US, and some (preferably select-able) combination of publicly available support (credits or direct assistance) and private HC Ins. should be able to satisfy most peoples situations. Yes, states, and the Fed should be able to do as you suppose above, but IMO the issue is the myriad opportunities for corrupt politicians to hijack legislation and ensure that they've cared for some special interest in return for quid pro quo. It's risky to raise the topic of our healthcare system here since there will be many strong opinions that have little to do with MannKind if the topic takes off. For an accessible, insightful and somewhat depressing explanation of the latest attempt to fix things, I highly recommend the book America's Bitter Pill: Money, Politics, Backroom Deals and the Fight to Fix Our Broken Healthcare System by Steven Brill. The author is a professional journalist who has written extensively on the US heathcare system. Partisans on the issue needn't worry: the Obamacare saga described in the book makes everyone look bad. One relevant section describes the deal that was struck with PhRMA (drug industry association) to ensure that Medicare is required to pay 106% of the average wholesale cost of any drug. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on May 9, 2016 20:33:13 GMT -5
I'm curious where you learned about Canada asking for it (Afrezza). I live in Canada and I've never heard any mention of Afrezza up here, unless it came through some U.S. source (like on CNN or FOX or Reuters or AP). For instance, this Canadian newspaper published an article about it but only because it recycles Washington Post articles: news.nationalpost.com/health/inhaled-insulin-may-eventually-mean-no-more-shotsPeople with Diabetes, (several) have been asking for Afrezza since the Febuary 2015 launch. This is one example of a tweet I could copy/paste for proof. FWIW, nothing on that fellow's profile (or the people / groups he follows) suggests he is Canadian. More likely an American just following everything MNKD-related. |
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on May 9, 2016 20:57:51 GMT -5
People with Diabetes, (several) have been asking for Afrezza since the Febuary 2015 launch. This is one example of a tweet I could copy/paste for proof. FWIW, nothing on that fellow's profile (or the people / groups he follows) suggests he is Canadian. More likely an American just following everything MNKD-related. Yes, there have been several Canadians that have asked over and over when Afrezza would be introduced to Canada, some are extremely upset, (with Sanofi) that it's not there yet. I was only responding to you as you questioned my source about Afrezza and Canada, and this was a tweet that I could reference. Regardless, I know for myself that PWD are requesting Afrezza, with no disrespect, I feel I have done enough to support my claim that you questioned. Best of luck to you. |
|
