|
Post by hellodolly on Jan 26, 2018 12:56:44 GMT -5
Bots generating hit pieces, tool bags reporting fake news all when the stock is retracing and the shorts have dug in after yesterday's explosion. Not hard to have happen considering nearly half the float is short, duh. Funny how yesterday nobody could explain the run up (all theories here and everywhere else) but, today...everyone or every bot has the answer. Bwaaahaaahaa. Nothing happening. Shuffling off for the weekend. By the way, once we have the announcement for the secondary and we have the cash, they'll still say we don't have the cash. Mark it! Have a great weekend -best regards.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 26, 2018 13:11:40 GMT -5
Bots generating hit pieces, tool bags reporting fake news all when the stock is retracing and the shorts have dug in after yesterday's explosion. Not hard to have happen considering nearly half the float is short, duh. Funny how yesterday nobody could explain the run up (all theories here and everywhere else) but, today...everyone or every bot has the answer. Bwaaahaaahaa. Nothing happening. Shuffling off for the weekend. By the way, once we have the announcement for the secondary and we have the cash, they'll still say we don't have the cash. Mark it! Have a great weekend -best regards. I'd certainly guess they point out we'll only have enough cash for a fairly short period of time... because that will likely be true.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jan 26, 2018 15:39:20 GMT -5
Bots generating hit pieces, tool bags reporting fake news all when the stock is retracing and the shorts have dug in after yesterday's explosion. Not hard to have happen considering nearly half the float is short, duh. Funny how yesterday nobody could explain the run up (all theories here and everywhere else) but, today...everyone or every bot has the answer. Bwaaahaaahaa. Nothing happening. Shuffling off for the weekend. By the way, once we have the announcement for the secondary and we have the cash, they'll still say we don't have the cash. Mark it! Have a great weekend -best regards. I'd certainly guess they point out we'll only have enough cash for a fairly short period of time... because that will likely be true. right around June when the stat study comes out. is there a catch 22 here dream boat? I am asking. Because we need catch 22. Are the pharmacy purchasing managers/health insurance required to cover a superior product? Do you or anyone here know (Matt) are there requirements for the PBM/health insurance to offer products in the same insulin category that are found superior?
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 26, 2018 16:23:29 GMT -5
I'd certainly guess they point out we'll only have enough cash for a fairly short period of time... because that will likely be true. right around June when the stat study comes out. is there a catch 22 here dream boat? I am asking. Because we need catch 22. Are the pharmacy purchasing managers/health insurance required to cover a superior product? Do you or anyone here know (Matt) are there requirements for the PBM/health insurance to offer products in the same insulin category that are found superior? Seems they'll need to raise money before STAT is public. I think a very large offering wouldn't be successful right now, and if we are going to have good news with STAT and possibly mid year formulary improvement, it might not even make sense to try to do a large offering now. I'm glad I don't have to make that decision, however. It could seem smartest to do a smaller raise now and wait for facts on the ground to look better, but then there could be some big broader market shaking event that makes an offering difficult to do when they would need it. It's an uncomfortable place to be having such a short cash runway. With my businesses I always tried to keep a one year runway between cash and order backlog, and would have felt very insecure if that were no more than 4 months. I don't think there is any clear law that says an insurance company has to cover something that is "superior" because there really isn't a clear definition of what that would mean within any given drug category. There could be a whole myriad of metrics that are end points of clinical trials. Superiority on which of those and how much of an improvement would trigger a mandate for coverage would be something very difficult to determine. But even with lack of a clear law, patients could put a lot of pressure on insurance if there were trials showing meaningful superiority in some metric(s) that is generally accepted as clinically important. Though putting patients through "step therapy" to see if they respond well on cheaper things still might be hard to get rid of... at least until ADA changes guidelines. Rather than "superior" I think the legal standard would be "medically necessary," but that too has no clear definition... and different states may have nuances about mandatory coverage. You see law suits by patients all the time over whether treatments should be considered medically necessary. A cancer treatment that keeps someone alive for 6 months on average vs 5 months is clearly superior, but if it costs half a million for that extra month is an insurer obligated to pay for it... etc. Then there is the whole issue of the convoluted rebate system, which may mean apparent cost savings aren't necessarily the big driver on formulary coverage. [My general thoughts on your question based on what I know, but please take with grain of salt. If I really knew this stuff I'd be rich by now.]
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jan 26, 2018 17:13:37 GMT -5
Primary outcomes for the A-One study are due in February 2018. This is the study being conducted with Afrezza and OneDrop. The results from this study may also be presented at the 2018 ADA Scientific Sessions. Perhaps CEO Castagna will elaborate on this at the Nobles Investors Conference next week?
|
|