|
|
Post by lb on Oct 26, 2016 8:16:20 GMT -5
They are interested mostly in protecting themselves from lawsuits, and after that keeping patients just sick enough, but not dead, so the profits keep rolling.
Maybe that's what Afrezza's problem is.
They need to find a partner and launch in a different part of the world where traditionally doctors' attitudes are different, in a country like China, Japan, Israel, or even Russia /most of Eastern Europe where doctors' goal is a healthy patient.
Betting all they've got on US is a mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Oct 26, 2016 8:38:17 GMT -5
Afrezza is a treatment and not a cure. If it was a cure we would all be retiring off our investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Oct 26, 2016 8:43:01 GMT -5
Afrezza is a treatment and not a cure. If it was a cure we would all be retiring off our investment. or, MNKD would have been shut down long ago. No cures allowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by MnkdWASmyRtrmntPlan on Oct 26, 2016 16:26:14 GMT -5
Afrezza is a treatment and not a cure. If it was a cure we would all be retiring off our investment. I have to disagree. Pharma companies would go broke if they invented cures. They purvey lifetime treatments. Cha-ching! |
|
|
|
Post by liane on Oct 26, 2016 17:19:19 GMT -5
lb, The title of your thread is just so wrong. It's offensive to make such broad generalizations.
|
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Oct 26, 2016 18:21:10 GMT -5
Not only do I agree with Liane, you must consider the basis for competition in the US. Always find a better way so if one company maintains the status quo another will go a step further and find a cure and the status quo company will fail ultimately. It is part of the American DNA. Witness the evolution of the first the telecommunications business, then the music business, then the television business, and now automotive as technology as given them the capabilities for such paradigm changing evolutions. Now technology has caught up with pharma ever since the decoding of the human genome... We are in for some seismic changes in phama in my opinion. Your reference to the status quo is to me simply not having progressed enough to have the proper tools to facilitate such change... Now we do in pharma, even if BP is resistant...
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Oct 26, 2016 18:45:18 GMT -5
I think that I might have to start a thread called, "U.S. doctors are all intelligent and good looking" just to get liane calmed down. I am having a difficult time trying to figure why she would refer to doctors as "broads" though.  |
|
|
|
Post by lb on Oct 26, 2016 20:23:25 GMT -5
95% of them from my personal experience. There will always be few good ones somewhere. Happy now?
Definitely there are few good ones among those 1000+ "prescribing" Afrezza at a rate of 150 per week. So, 6 doctors combined prescribe 1 Afrezza once per week.
That's 0.15 Afrezzas per doctor per week. So, every 7 weeks each of them prescribes 1 Afrezza. OK, let's add refills too. So, it's given or taken 1 Afrezza in almost a month (3.5 weeks) per Doc.
One old-school doc in Eastern Europe told me a story where her colleague went to work under contract in Canada. She prescribed a cure (an old proven medicine from sty) on each patient's first visit.
The word spread out and many others went to see that doc. However, she got fired soon after because she "wasn't bringing enough revenue."
The moral of the story:
"Reduction of A1C levels to pre-diabetic levels", "fewer complications", "faster onset", "I am a new person", etc. = less suffering = fewer visits = less $$$. For profit medical system at its glory.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 26, 2016 20:41:59 GMT -5
At least where I am there are no shortage of patients for doctors... so I don't get the sense they want to keep you sick. They may want you out of their exam room quickly since they can book more appointments that way, but even the lackluster doctors I've had seem to genuinely be interested in providing effective treatment... even if not putting in the time necessary to do so.
One can always pick a capitated provider like Kaiser. Under that model the physician certainly has an incentive to not have you show up in their office... so keeping you sick would seem to serve no purpose.
[Of course I'm mostly talking about GPs not specialists]
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Oct 26, 2016 20:48:59 GMT -5
It would be almost impossible to suppress a cure for diabetes. The status for the discoverer and the revenue for their employer sees to that. The PR damage of getting caught suppressing a cure (killing the kids anyone?) which may well not be survivable. That's before you consider that most of the research is done outside big pharma in the first place, and anyway there is a lot of pharma that is not in this market and would love to sell a cure. Even companies selling diabetes drugs would want it. This would be one of those blockbusters pharma CEOs dream about there would be so much cash.
|
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Oct 26, 2016 21:49:02 GMT -5
95% of them from my personal experience. There will always be few good ones somewhere. Happy now? Definitely there are few good ones among those 1000+ "prescribing" Afrezza at a rate of 150 per week. So, 6 doctors combined prescribe 1 Afrezza once per week. That's 0.15 Afrezzas per doctor per week. So, every 7 weeks each of them prescribes 1 Afrezza. OK, let's add refills too. So, it's given or taken 1 Afrezza in almost a month (3.5 weeks) per Doc. One old-school doc in Eastern Europe told me a story where her colleague went to work under contract in Canada. She prescribed a cure (an old proven medicine from sty) on each patient's first visit. The word spread out and many others went to see that doc. However, she got fired soon after because she "wasn't bringing enough revenue." The moral of the story: "Reduction of A1C levels to pre-diabetic levels", "fewer complications", "faster onset", "I am a new person", etc. = less suffering = fewer visits = less $$$. For profit medical system at its glory. While I'm not adding much to the two great posts before me, I'll phrase it in a different way than they do. Please take a moment and think about what you're really saying. Assertion 1- Docs know of something better but they're prescribing inferior medication to keep their patients sick. Unhappy patients not only make great patients (sarcasm) but that's every patient's dream- to go to the doctor and not have their ailment fixed. I know I'd switch docs if he wasn't able to help me. Assertion 2- Diabetics don't really want a cure for their disease. While you did not explicitly state this, it is deeply implied in your post. Stay with me here... You're saying that there is not an unmet demand and that said demand would not be any more lucrative for this "bad" doctor. Assertion 3- There are not enough sick diabetics to compensate for fewer office visits. To add to this, you're also saying that frequent appointments will not be made for new scripts and to monitor therapy and adherence. This will likely never happen in diabetes until there is a cure. Diabetes is a disease that must be continuously monitored at least several times a year. Assertion 4- Sick diabetics would not flock to a doctor who would most likely offer them much better management of their disease. After reading what you're really saying, are you sure that you believe what you're saying? |
|
|
|
Post by me on Oct 27, 2016 11:25:37 GMT -5
95% of them from my personal experience. There will always be few good ones somewhere. Happy now? Definitely there are few good ones among those 1000+ "prescribing" Afrezza at a rate of 150 per week. So, 6 doctors combined prescribe 1 Afrezza once per week. That's 0.15 Afrezzas per doctor per week. So, every 7 weeks each of them prescribes 1 Afrezza. OK, let's add refills too. So, it's given or taken 1 Afrezza in almost a month (3.5 weeks) per Doc. One old-school doc in Eastern Europe told me a story where her colleague went to work under contract in Canada. She prescribed a cure (an old proven medicine from sty) on each patient's first visit. The word spread out and many others went to see that doc. However, she got fired soon after because she "wasn't bringing enough revenue." The moral of the story: "Reduction of A1C levels to pre-diabetic levels", "fewer complications", "faster onset", "I am a new person", etc. = less suffering = fewer visits = less $$$. For profit medical system at its glory. So you've had experience with 95% of physicians out there? |
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Oct 27, 2016 14:25:38 GMT -5
They are interested mostly in protecting themselves from lawsuits, and after that keeping patients just sick enough, but not dead, so the profits keep rolling. Maybe that's what Afrezza's problem is. They need to find a partner and launch in a different part of the world where traditionally doctors' attitudes are different, in a country like China, Japan, Israel, or even Russia /most of Eastern Europe where doctors' goal is a healthy patient. Betting all they've got on US is a mistake. Pretty broad generalization. No doubt there are some physicians with that attitude, but I don't think I've ever met one. And I know quite a few. That aside, the U.S. is easily the best pharmaceutical market in the world. I'm sure Mannkind management would love to find some international partners, but they've pretty much said that it won't happen unless Afrezza shows life in the one market where it's already approved, which is hardly surprising. |
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Oct 27, 2016 14:28:28 GMT -5
Afrezza is a treatment and not a cure. If it was a cure we would all be retiring off our investment. I have to disagree. Pharma companies would go broke if they invented cures. They purvey lifetime treatments. Cha-ching! Pharmas have come up with many cures. Antibiotics, for example. And look at the new hep C drugs -- very profitable cures. Cancer drugs, which sometimes do cure. And so on. A company that came up with a cure for diabetes would do very well. |
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Oct 27, 2016 14:33:08 GMT -5
I have to disagree. Pharma companies would go broke if they invented cures. They purvey lifetime treatments. Cha-ching! Pharmas have come up with many cures. Antibiotics, for example. And look at the new hep C drugs -- very profitable cures. Cancer drugs, which sometimes do cure. And so on. A company that came up with a cure for diabetes would do very well. And what about a company that came up with a way to mimic the pancreas' release of insulin into the bloodstream? |
|
