|
|
Post by lb on Oct 27, 2017 23:34:57 GMT -5
Latest comprehensive study was published by SA Spencer Osborne in July showing a non-preferred status or no coverage at most insurance providers in 2017.
I've just checked Cigna formulary, and I didn't even see Afrezza on it. Aetna still lists it as non-preferred.
That seems to be the primary driver for sales or lack of thereof.
Does anyone know if any changes are coming in 2018? I think Mike mentioned he'd be meeting with some big shots in February?
|
|
|
|
Post by lakers on Oct 28, 2017 4:26:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by boca1girl on Oct 28, 2017 6:40:06 GMT -5
Latest comprehensive study was published by SA Spencer Osborne in July showing a non-preferred status or no coverage at most insurance providers in 2017. I've just checked Cigna formulary, and I didn't even see Afrezza on it. Aetna still lists it as non-preferred. That seems to be the primary driver for sales or lack of thereof. Does anyone know if any changes are coming in 2018? I think Mike mentioned he'd be meeting with some big shots in February? I believebe Mike said a large insurer will add Afrezza in Jan 2018 due to the improved label. |
|
|
|
Post by tw12 on Oct 30, 2017 20:40:40 GMT -5
And on a side note: "...should medical doctors wear uniforms that identify their sponsors and who they receive kickbacks from?" (copied from a meme that crossed my desk today)
|
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Oct 30, 2017 22:31:48 GMT -5
And on a side note: "...should medical doctors wear uniforms that identify their sponsors and who they receive kickbacks from?" (copied from a meme that crossed my desk today) Like NASCAR drivers - Good one. |
|
|
|
Post by cyn on Oct 31, 2017 14:50:44 GMT -5
Lakers,
Thanks for posting the CVS-Aetna deal article! The current trend to move both Pharma and Medical benefits under one roof should bode well for manufacturers of higher priced drugs (like MKND). Article excerpt....
"For years, pharmacy benefits were largely carved out from the rest of a medical coverage plan. But increasingly the two services are being combined, a move that in theory will make it easier to verify whether expensive drugs are worth the cost. A merger of the third-biggest health insurer with the largest U.S. drugstore chain, which also operates a pharmacy-benefit management company, could speed the process..... Drugmakers are producing more pricey treatments for cancer and rare diseases. Combining drug and medical benefits in the same place is “the only way” payers will figure out whether such expensive new drugs are actually making people better and saving money by keeping them out of the hospital, he said."
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 31, 2017 15:30:52 GMT -5
Lakers,
Thanks for posting the CVS-Aetna deal article! The current trend to move both Pharma and Medical benefits under one roof should bode well for manufacturers of higher priced drugs (like MKND). Article excerpt....
"For years, pharmacy benefits were largely carved out from the rest of a medical coverage plan. But increasingly the two services are being combined, a move that in theory will make it easier to verify whether expensive drugs are worth the cost. A merger of the third-biggest health insurer with the largest U.S. drugstore chain, which also operates a pharmacy-benefit management company, could speed the process..... Drugmakers are producing more pricey treatments for cancer and rare diseases. Combining drug and medical benefits in the same place is “the only way” payers will figure out whether such expensive new drugs are actually making people better and saving money by keeping them out of the hospital, he said."
This would seem logical argument. However, I would point out that Kaiser, which has long had a totally integrated model (they control everything... insurance, facilities, doctors, formularies and pharmacy) does not yet offer Afrezza on most of their regional plans. I've found that very disappointing. They have been progressive (though evidence based) in certain practices, but when it comes to diabetes they seem to be stuck in the mud and not particularly interested in looking for new evidence. |
|
