|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Mar 27, 2017 15:31:17 GMT -5
Which portion of the patient population are you looking to lower the price? The discount coupon brings the price down to $15 per month for many patients that have commercial insurance. Does that need to be even lower? Is it for Medicare patients that don't have coverage? Since Afrezza isn't covered at all by most Medicare the coupon would provide $150 discount. Perhaps that should be increased? We really know nothing about the price of Afrezza that the insurance companies pay as that is all done in secret. to my knowledge there is no coupon available for Medicare patients or any government funded programs .. am I wrong?? I read this on the site .. government funded programs such as Medicare patients aren't qualified to use the coupon and they get no discount. If a drug is totally uncovered by Medicare then the patient is simply a cash patient, and I would think the coupon could be used at that point. The government doesn't allow this type of coupon if they are covering a portion of the cost. I think that is how it works.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Mar 27, 2017 17:26:24 GMT -5
"Offer is not valid for patients if their prescriptions are paid in part or in full by any state or federally funded programs, including, but not limited to, Medicare or Medicaid, Medigap, VA, DOD or TRICARE." www.activatethecard.com/afrezza7354/
|
|
|
Post by wgreystone on Mar 27, 2017 17:36:22 GMT -5
Expensive and unpopular. MannKind's CEO and Board of Directors need to wake up. It seems almost criminal how they have priced Afrezza and it's, IMHO, a dishonor to Alfred E Mann. Especially now that we're learning that Afrezza works best when administered with two doses (at the beginning of the meal, followed by a second adjustment dose) the cost of this treatment at the current prices is outrageous. <img src="//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/superangry.png" alt=" " class="smile" contenteditable="false" text=" " I have been saying on this board that Mannkind needed to lower Afrezza price by at least 1/3 or add 30 more cartridges to each box and keep the price same. What's really troublesome is Mike or Matt never admitted that Afrezza is more expensive. Wouldn't that be a simple math?
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Mar 27, 2017 17:48:39 GMT -5
Expensive and unpopular. MannKind's CEO and Board of Directors need to wake up. It seems almost criminal how they have priced Afrezza and it's, IMHO, a dishonor to Alfred E Mann. Especially now that we're learning that Afrezza works best when administered with two doses (at the beginning of the meal, followed by a second adjustment dose) the cost of this treatment at the current prices is outrageous. <img src="//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/superangry.png" alt=" " class="smile" contenteditable="false" text=" " I have been saying on this board that Mannkind needed to lower Afrezza price by at least 1/3 or add 30 more cartridges to each box and keep the price same. What's really troublesome is Mike or Matt never admitted that Afrezza is more expensive. Wouldn't that be a simple math? More expensive for the insurance company? More expensive for the patient that is paying a fixed copay and can't use the discount card? More expensive for those with copay that can use the card so they pay $15/month? More expensive for the patient paying the cash price and using the discount card to get $150 discount each month? Seems whether it is more or less expensive is a pretty complicated question with more than one answer.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Mar 27, 2017 17:54:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Mar 27, 2017 18:00:03 GMT -5
Well, that's great. Nice to see that he's moving on it.
I wonder how long he would have left it without the reminder?
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Mar 27, 2017 18:00:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Mar 27, 2017 18:01:57 GMT -5
I have been saying on this board that Mannkind needed to lower Afrezza price by at least 1/3 or add 30 more cartridges to each box and keep the price same. What's really troublesome is Mike or Matt never admitted that Afrezza is more expensive. Wouldn't that be a simple math? More expensive for the insurance company? More expensive for the patient that is paying a fixed copay and can't use the discount card? More expensive for those with copay that can use the card so they pay $15/month? More expensive for the patient paying the cash price and using the discount card to get $150 discount each month? Seems whether it is more or less expensive is a pretty complicated question with more than one answer. You're all making it far too complicated. It's simple, it's way more expensive to own the stock than anything having to do with purchasing the drug. I can't imagine anyone can argue with that!
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Mar 27, 2017 18:03:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Mar 27, 2017 20:23:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Mar 27, 2017 21:59:15 GMT -5
Hold them accountable. If GoodRx has descriptions of drugs that cost more than $50 but don't include the word "expensive" in the description, the statement posted by GoodRx, while not a public falsehood per se, is very misleading. For example, Humira is listed with a retail price of $5,500 but the word "expensive" doesn't appear in the description. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that the GoodRx poster means to imply that insulin fast/rapid-acting analogs (RAA) and inhaled fast-acting insulin (human) are expensive drugs for diabetes treatment.
GoodRx also uses the term "fast-acting" in the descriptions for Humalog and Apridra, but doesn't mention that insulin classification for the other prandial insulin brands Novolog or Afrezza. Interesting, but let's disregard these omissions of drug classification, for a moment. The bigger concern is that by choosing to selectively use the word "expensive" in the diabetes drug description, GoodRx appears to portray themselves as champions of cheaper insulin treatments. That's unfortunate because, in the long term, a cheap treatment like metformin may inflict more harm to the patient AND more lifetime costs for drug treatments and surgery to a patient with diabetes mellitus.
The GoodRx folks apparently have not read the published studies that short-term intensive insulin treatment, if administered early enough (before the pancreas is irreparably damaged) has been proven to result in repairing the pancreas and the complete drug-free remission of diabetes mellitus for nearly 50% of the patients (meta-data from more than 3,200 trial patients) for up to two years. No drugs for two years after STII therapy! It's been proven true and yet the American public continues to be subjected to this misleading, short-sighted information about insulin being "expensive".
IMO, GoodRx should stick to price comparisons and using the official drug descriptions instead of injecting what many will consider to be spurious opinions about the drug into its on-site description. The disclaimer at the GoodRx website reads, "GoodRx is not offering advice, recommending or endorsing any specific prescription drug, pharmacy or other information on the site". That's lawyer-speak for protecting themselves and yet GoodRx choosing to use subjective words like "expensive" in such a narrow context of the drug's price alone certainly seems to be an endorsement for the use of cheaper diabetes drugs that have proven to be disastrously expensive to the long-term health, and eventually the life of the patient.
Hopefully, one solution is to provide GoodRx with links to the latest clinical studies and FDA data to information centers like GoodRx with a recommendation to refrain from the use of potentially misleading drug descriptions. That would likely be preferable to an ugly public-relations expose. Lawyers can play terrific games by using semantics in disclaimers like "not recommending or endorsing any specific prescription drug, pharmacy or other information on the site" and yet sway public opinion by their selective use of descriptions for specific drugs and/or drug classes.
I hope GoodRx reconsiders their use of the word "expensive" to describe today's better, safer and, in the long-term health of the patient, cheaper insulin treatments. Diabetes mellitus is the kind of disease where the cheapest drug CAN be the one that costs you an arm and a leg - literally.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 27, 2017 22:06:36 GMT -5
For the benefit of Edward Ovalles - Novlin R at $24.88 per vial from Walmart (put it into GoodRx). That's Regular insulin and not an analog. They also sell NPH. Walmart saves a lot of lives with that insulin.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 27, 2017 22:14:46 GMT -5
Hold them accountable. If GoodRx has descriptions of drugs that cost more than $50 but don't include the word "expensive" in the description, the statement posted by GoodRx, while not a public falsehood per se, is very misleading. For example, Humira is listed with a retail price of $5,500 but the word "expensive" doesn't appear in the description. GoodRx also uses the term "short-acting" in the descriptions for Humalog and Apridra, but doesn't mention the insulin classification for the other prandial insulin brands Novolog or Afrezza. But let's regard these omissions of drug classification, for a moment. The bigger concern is that by choosing to selectively use the word "expensive" in the diabetes drug description, GoodRx appears to portray themselves as champions of cheaper insulin treatments. That's unfortunate because, in the long term, a cheap treatment like metformin may inflict more harm to the patient AND more lifetime costs for drug treatments and surgery to a patient with diabetes mellitus. The GoodRx folks apparently have not read the published studies that short-term intensive insulin treatment, if administered early enough (before the pancreas is irreparably damaged) has been proven to result in repairing the pancreas and the complete drug-free remission of diabetes mellitus for nearly 50% of the patients (meta-data from than 3,200 trial patients) for up to two years. No drugs for two years after STII therapy! It's been proven true and yet the American public continues to be subjected to this misleading, short-sighted information about insulin being "expensive". IMO, GoodRx should stick to price comparisons and using the official drug descriptions instead of injecting what many will consider their spurious opinions. The disclaimer at the GoodRx website reads, "GoodRx is not offering advice, recommending or endorsing any specific prescription drug, pharmacy or other information on the site." Using subjective words like "expensive" in such a narrow context of retail cost alone certainly seems to be an endorsement of "cheaper" diabetes drugs, that have proven to be disastrously expensive to the long-term health, and even life, of the patient. Hopefully, one solution is to provide links to the latest clinical studies and FDA data to information centers like GoodRx. That would likely be more effective than an ugly public-relations expose. The site is about finding cheap prescriptions, not medical research or treatment options. These are Rx prescriptions so really I don't think they should say anything at all. To get anything other than the OTC insulins (Regular and NPH) requires a prescription and I would hope the doctor writing it is not relying on GoodRx (or any other site like it) for prescribing advice. That being the case the description is fluff because either the doctor has written you a prescription for the drug or not, you don't get to change it. I cannot get my Humalog prescription filled with Novolog if I want it even though they are widely regarded as equivalent.
|
|
|
Post by careful2invest on Mar 27, 2017 22:59:26 GMT -5
Hold them accountable. If GoodRx has descriptions of drugs that cost more than $50 but don't include the word "expensive" in the description, the statement posted by GoodRx, while not a public falsehood per se, is very misleading. For example, Humira is listed with a retail price of $5,500 but the word "expensive" doesn't appear in the description. GoodRx also uses the term "short-acting" in the descriptions for Humalog and Apridra, but doesn't mention the insulin classification for the other prandial insulin brands Novolog or Afrezza. But let's regard these omissions of drug classification, for a moment. The bigger concern is that by choosing to selectively use the word "expensive" in the diabetes drug description, GoodRx appears to portray themselves as champions of cheaper insulin treatments. That's unfortunate because, in the long term, a cheap treatment like metformin may inflict more harm to the patient AND more lifetime costs for drug treatments and surgery to a patient with diabetes mellitus. The GoodRx folks apparently have not read the published studies that short-term intensive insulin treatment, if administered early enough (before the pancreas is irreparably damaged) has been proven to result in repairing the pancreas and the complete drug-free remission of diabetes mellitus for nearly 50% of the patients (meta-data from than 3,200 trial patients) for up to two years. No drugs for two years after STII therapy! It's been proven true and yet the American public continues to be subjected to this misleading, short-sighted information about insulin being "expensive". IMO, GoodRx should stick to price comparisons and using the official drug descriptions instead of injecting what many will consider their spurious opinions. The disclaimer at the GoodRx website reads, "GoodRx is not offering advice, recommending or endorsing any specific prescription drug, pharmacy or other information on the site." Using subjective words like "expensive" in such a narrow context of retail cost alone certainly seems to be an endorsement of "cheaper" diabetes drugs, that have proven to be disastrously expensive to the long-term health, and even life, of the patient. Hopefully, one solution is to provide links to the latest clinical studies and FDA data to information centers like GoodRx. That would likely be more effective than an ugly public-relations expose. How many times is this going to happen before MNKD grows a pair to contest the misleading reports written about AFREZZA? How many times does this make? Blatant or subtle... It happened before approval, causing two CRL's and yet nearly three years later, it continues to happen, further hurting the brand, might even bury it!! And all that we heard all along is that their "hands are tied" or in a "silent period". Or not allowed to say this or that. Even the SEC is turning a blind eye to what is going on. And I, like many, have lost a strong 6 figures! While I was told about an "embarrassment of riches". I guess that is only if I would have shorted MNKD 7 years ago instead of going long! I must have missed the disclaimer! There are many options to promote AFREZZA! Yes, some are expensive, but some are not! A smart, outgoing spokesperson, trained extensively about Diabetes, AFREZZA etc. to go on a nationwide talk show tour. Radio, Attend EVERY Diabetes Convention with force! MNKD could take advantage of Bernie Sanders fight against the big three with the pricing of Insulin, and come in at a lower price, with a Revolutionary, paradigm changing, life changing treatment for Diabetes and look like saviors while gaining the exposure that AFREZZA needs and deserves to finally become a success. Still no one has heard of AFREZZA, and many of those that have, have only heard the negative reports! And here we are...3 years later...Still trying to figure out the best method of titration?...Really?... and still getting bashed in the media and on Wall Street! I have not given up, I cannot afford to, but it's getting hard to stomach! If MNKD does not turn this around, I'll have no choice but to change my screen name to Careless2haveinvested! Come on Matt, Mike, show us something "epic"! I hope that you can do it!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 4:08:04 GMT -5
Expensive and unpopular. MannKind's CEO and Board of Directors need to wake up. It seems almost criminal how they have priced Afrezza and it's, IMHO, a dishonor to Alfred E Mann. Especially now that we're learning that Afrezza works best when administered with two doses (at the beginning of the meal, followed by a second adjustment dose) the cost of this treatment at the current prices is outrageous. Do M&M know something they are not revealing to shareholders? I can't imagine Matt would do anything AL would disapprove of.
|
|