|
|
Post by gamblerjag on Aug 23, 2016 10:12:02 GMT -5
Well if people need to change health plans to get Afrezza now is the time.. Open enrollment is coming up. I'm sure many will be looking into changing.
|
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Aug 23, 2016 10:13:51 GMT -5
From the FAQ, "we are investigating our ability to post
prescription data on our web site or similar accessible portal under the terms of our subscription
agreement with the provider of this data."
Reply: That would be nice.
Other comments. The speculation about pricing now is moot. With insulin price increases, and discounts, the Board, has determined the price and that it can be done. 70% insurance coverage after prior authorizations. Additionally the 2016 abstracts that will make label changes possible. www.mannkindcorp.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/Baughman%20poster%20100-LB%20FINAL%20X2.pdf This is the information physicians needed to get on board.
One other thing. For those of you that think, with the discount cards, the amount of money Mannkind will get reimbursed from insurance will not be enough, you are "el wrongo." Mannkind gets the script, works with discount cards, and retains users; their is enough profit margin.
 
Interesting on the mankind slide Mannkind shows afrezza and tresiba
Very interesting indeed. I remember reading an article or a thread...can't remember which - about how well Afrezza and Tresiba worked together. Also, just saw a Tresiba commercial today. First one I've seen and was well done - IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Aug 23, 2016 10:58:54 GMT -5
I too appreciate the FAQ update. Still wonder why that Reuter's article that came out in January 2016 about MNKD possibly looking to sell. I never believed it to be true and Reuters usually is one of the better resources.. I guess they just got false info.
From 1/27/16 MannKind reportedly looking to sell itself If I remember correctly, what the article actually said was that Mannkind was evaluating its strategic options and that everything was on the table, including the possibility of selling the company, which probably was true. Doubt that sale was ever considered the first option, however. So the headline was somewhat misleading. |
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Aug 23, 2016 11:01:49 GMT -5
Lol $15 is copayment that the patients pay to pharmacy.. Insurance pays the rest . Have you had ever filled an RX and looked into your prescription plan? At $15 cost, even the target of 6.5 million diabetics wouldn't even pay for a Mannkind. They better close the shop and stop the agony But if the insurance company doesn't cover it, then MNKD collects nothing? It's called a copayment because two parties are paying, the patient and his insurance company. If the drug isn't covered by insurance, there's no copay -- the patient pays the full price. |
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Aug 23, 2016 11:08:07 GMT -5
The payments are from Mannkind selling on part of the the Amphastar insulin delivery. Mannkind pays around $13 million and then resells up to 65% ($9 million) to Sanofi. Expect a put every time Mannkind has to take delivery from Amphastar. Thank you! I missed it completely.. At the risk of asking another "already answered question".. MNKD sells 65% of insulin bought form AMPH. Do they make any profit off of it? AFAIK, MNKD has to buy at the most $50mil of insulin from AMPH - is that right? Thanks! Amphastar is the sole supplier of insulin for Afrezza, and Mannkind has a multiyear contract with them that stipulates annual minimums. I forget what they are, but it's well over $50 million in toto. The $50 million is the max Sanofi has to pay for the "put." The put helps Mannkind deal with the current oversupply, which hopefully will someday no longer be oversupply. |
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Aug 23, 2016 11:14:23 GMT -5
Uh that isnt a pricing issue if they cost nearly the same whole sale that is an insurance coverage issue. Just like obamacare(health insurance) isnt health care. Apples are not oranges but people keep trying to say they are...... Anderson, help me understand "Just like obamacare (health insurance) isn't health care". Thanks. Health care is provided by doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, etc. Health insurance helps pay for health care. And since there wound up being no public option in the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), it is yet another level removed, just facilitating people obtaining health insurance. |
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Aug 23, 2016 11:30:32 GMT -5
Well if people need to change health plans to get Afrezza now is the time.. Open enrollment is coming up. I'm sure many will be looking into changing. People covered by employer-sponsored plans (which is most who are not on Medicare) seldom have much, if any, choice in providers. These, however, tend to be the best plans. Plans available on the individual market, which includes everything on the healthcare exchanges, are usually more restrictive, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by derek2 on Aug 23, 2016 15:04:47 GMT -5
Actually, the COGS was inadvertently disclosed quite some time ago by Matt in a sort of backdoor manner. Some folks figured it out based on Pfeffer's remark about the deal being equivalent to a mid-20% royalty deal. Some shareholders who were accountants were able to take that information and a COGS was calculated and posted. However, two years later, I'm not certain that I could even find those posts anymore. As I recall, the profit margin for MannKind was over 85% profit margin AFTER Sanofi's 65% piece of the pie. I remember the comments. I think there were a lot of wishful assumptions in the working back of COGS in that situation, but I won't pretend to know any better than the original posters. Your statement that there would be a profit margin at $135 per box may be true. Actually, I hope that it would be true. |
|
|
|
Post by loggingout on Aug 25, 2016 10:27:57 GMT -5
Actually, the COGS was inadvertently disclosed quite some time ago by Matt in a sort of backdoor manner. Some folks figured it out based on Pfeffer's remark about the deal being equivalent to a mid-20% royalty deal. Some shareholders who were accountants were able to take that information and a COGS was calculated and posted. However, two years later, I'm not certain that I could even find those posts anymore. As I recall, the profit margin for MannKind was over 85% profit margin AFTER Sanofi's 65% piece of the pie. I remember the comments. I think there were a lot of wishful assumptions in the working back of COGS in that situation, but I won't pretend to know any better than the original posters. Your statement that there would be a profit margin at $135 per box may be true. Actually, I hope that it would be true. So are you saying they'd need 120 million expenses divided by $135 per box divided by 52 equals 17,000 boxes sold each week just to reach break even? |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Aug 25, 2016 10:41:00 GMT -5
I remember the comments. I think there were a lot of wishful assumptions in the working back of COGS in that situation, but I won't pretend to know any better than the original posters. Your statement that there would be a profit margin at $135 per box may be true. Actually, I hope that it would be true. So are you saying they'd need 120 million expenses divided by $135 per box divided by 52 equals 17,000 boxes sold each week just to reach break even? if a 90 count 4 u box of afrezza (360 units) cost 20 dollars to produce and sells for $230 dollars with all discounts and this is the configuration... www.afrezza.com/hcp/configuration-chart
What would revenue be? ? Meeting the sanofi high of 500 scripts per week, 2000 new scripts per month with a 70% retention rate? how many boxes of afrezza is needed to be sold to break even?
Will any one do the math?
|
|
|
|
Post by anderson on Aug 25, 2016 10:44:08 GMT -5
I remember the comments. I think there were a lot of wishful assumptions in the working back of COGS in that situation, but I won't pretend to know any better than the original posters. Your statement that there would be a profit margin at $135 per box may be true. Actually, I hope that it would be true. So are you saying they'd need 120 million expenses divided by $135 per box divided by 52 equals 17,000 boxes sold each week just to reach break even? Assuming 3 boxes per prescription that works out 17000/3=5666. That sounds like the numbers that were thrown around ~6000 prescriptions a week break even. |
|
|
|
Post by derek2 on Aug 25, 2016 11:17:38 GMT -5
I remember the comments. I think there were a lot of wishful assumptions in the working back of COGS in that situation, but I won't pretend to know any better than the original posters. Your statement that there would be a profit margin at $135 per box may be true. Actually, I hope that it would be true. So are you saying they'd need 120 million expenses divided by $135 per box divided by 52 equals 17,000 boxes sold each week just to reach break even? Well, I was wondering if any number of boxes sold at $135 would reach break-even since MNKD has never directly released their cost of goods sold. If COGS > $135, you just lose more as you sell more. For example, if you buy gold bullion and sell 1 oz gold coins for $500, you will never make a profit, since your cost per item will be at least $1200 per coin. Si,milarly, that $120 million in cash burn is unrelated to manufacturing cost and does not take into account the cost per unit of manufacturing Afrezza, and the $120 M needs to be covered by profit margin per box above and beyond the cost. For example, if Afrezza costs $100 per box to manufacture, then at $135 (wholesale), you need to sell 3.4 M boxes per year or 60,000 boxes per week to cover the $120 M non-manufacturing cash burn. At $100 /box cost and $250 / box wholesale, the gross margin moves to $150 / box. You need to sell 800K boxes per year or 15K per week in order to break even. Also - regarding Matt's "similar to a 20% royalty" comment - he has never mentioned at what sales volume this number would apply (and he certainly won't now since the partnership is terminated). Without that, you can't ubtract the partnership fixed costs (advertising, trials, salaries of pharma reps), operational variable costs, and get to the cost of manufacturing at volume. |
|
|
|
Post by loggingout on Aug 25, 2016 12:50:23 GMT -5
So are you saying they'd need 120 million expenses divided by $135 per box divided by 52 equals 17,000 boxes sold each week just to reach break even? Assuming 3 boxes per prescription that works out 17000/3=5666. That sounds like the numbers that were thrown around ~6000 prescriptions a week break even. I was looking at the kit price which is $300 for a kit containing 90 cartridges. I figured the $135 was what MNKD took away from the sale of the kit. In that case, it would be 17,000 kits per week -- I think. But after reading the last reply by "derek2," I'm confused and will have to study on it a while. |
|
|
|
Post by derek2 on Aug 25, 2016 13:08:14 GMT -5
Assuming 3 boxes per prescription that works out 17000/3=5666. That sounds like the numbers that were thrown around ~6000 prescriptions a week break even. I was looking at the kit price which is $300 for a kit containing 90 cartridges. I figured the $135 was what MNKD took away from the sale of the kit. In that case, it would be 17,000 kits per week -- I think. But after reading the last reply by "derek2," I'm confused and will have to study on it a while. Sorry if I'm being confusing. I think general consensus is somewhere between 6K - 10K per week of prescriptions / refills worth $500 (2 boxes) in order to turn a profit for the company. Quite a few people have estimated within that range using a number of methods and assumptions, so I think it's a pretty safe bet. |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Aug 25, 2016 15:41:20 GMT -5
6,000/7,000 weekly TRx to break even sounds right.
Looking at the IMS chart, we had around 20,000 (21,279 TRx per IMS chart) for the first year of launch). Mike C. has mentioned that we had a $7 million first year sales. To get to an annual sales around $120 million (the current annual cash burn of Mannkind), we will need to increase the annual TRx of 20,000 by 17/18 fold (120/7=17.15), and then you divide it by 52 and you will get a 6,000/7,000 weekly TRx.
6,000/7,000 weekly TRx translates into around 30,000 monthly TRx. Mike c. mentions about a 1.5 million insulin TRx monthly. That means we need to get to 2% of the total monthly insulin (basal + bolus) prescriptions to break even.
(However, this only considers the US market and Afrezza alone. If Afrezza gains traction, we will have revenues of Afrezza and other TS products in and out US. So if Afrezza gains traction, I would think if we get to 1% of the total monthly insulin (basal + bolus) prescriptions, we will be very close to break even as we will surely have Afrezza sales outside US to come in later. Looking at the situation from that angle, then if we hit 3,000 TRx weekly, we will be well under our way to break even.)
3,000 TRx weekly is completely feasible, if we recall that, Exubera was at around 2,000 TRx weekly before it was pulled off from the market. Sure Pfizer put a lot of sales efforts into marketing Exubera, but Afrezza is much better product. Plus, we now have CGMs, social media and other tail winds for Afrezza.
|
|
? Meeting the sanofi high of 500 scripts per week, 2000 new scripts per month with a 70% retention rate?
