|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 15, 2019 15:32:44 GMT -5
Quick google search. Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFM) is a common viral infection that causes painful red blisters in the mouth and throat, and on the hands, feet, and diaper area One of the Urban Dictionary's entries has it as: Hot F***ing Mess. LOL, these unfortunate acronym meanings remind me of the time a political group in Canada named itself the Canadian Reform Alliance Party. They ended up changing the party name in a matter of weeks (maybe it was even days). |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 15, 2019 15:17:07 GMT -5
We have already seen where it lead us. How many more dilutions and failed add campaigns do you want to see?? Maybe next year Mike can use those dilution dollars to sponsor a horse and go to the Kentucky Derby... And market Afrezza to the well heeled members of the horsey set? Why not. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 15, 2019 15:11:31 GMT -5
Touting VDEX's 20% drop out rate is crazy ... they only have 300 patients. Every doc that I've been to will prescribe something and I follow the directions and use it. If it doesn't work, we look for another answer. But, I don't leave the doc because it failed. So, VDEX's 20% rate for dropouts ... actually makes them a loser. July 1st is the start of progress ... pay off Deerfield ... more progress with UTHR ... maybe I buy more shares? Ha! But, that's mytakeonit So VDEX is (or so it seems to have been suggested) state of the art when it comes to use of Afrezza training and education, and the drop out rate is STILL 20%? Some of that could be insurance related, but I thought we'd been told before that VDEX pretty much solved that issue for its clients? |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 15, 2019 9:00:58 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean when you focus on the word 'directly'. The VDEX proposal says: "MannKind agrees that it will refrain from selling Afrezza directly to any medical provider or practice, or to any entity that also owns all or part of, or controls, or is under common control, with any medical practice in any of the “abandoned states.”It seems to me that would include CVS, Merck, and others. CVS, for instance, owns and controls medical practices in so-called abandoned states. Perhaps that is not what VDEX intends, but it seems to me how that proposal can be interpreted. Even now, Mannkind does not sell afrezza "to any medical provider or practice." They don't sell directly to "CVS, Merck, and others." They sell to distributors who, in turn, sell to pharmacies, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. VDEX's proposal doesn't make sense since the agreement still wouldn't restrict the distributors from selling to those entities. That is something I don't know, i.e., who is / are the distributors Mannkind currently sells to. Do you know? Is there a list available to us? But, in any case, CVS Health includes CVS Caremark (the prescription benefit management subsidiary of CVS Health), and Caremark DOES deal direct with pharmaceutical companies (at least some of them). So a reading of the bold lettering suggests Mannkind could not deal directly with Caremark (and like entities) going forward. That seems to be asking a lot. But I'm not a lawyer, I may misunderstand. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 14, 2019 22:50:09 GMT -5
My understanding is that the CVS Health umbrella has both pharmacies and clinics, so I assume they do. I doubt the clinics sell drugs directly to the patients. The clinic doctor writes a prescription which the patient then takes to the pharmacy of their choice to get filled. The patient doesn't necessarily have to get the script filled at CVS. I'm not sure what you mean when you focus on the word 'directly'. The VDEX proposal says: "MannKind agrees that it will refrain from selling Afrezza directly to any medical provider or practice, or to any entity that also owns all or part of, or controls, or is under common control, with any medical practice in any of the “abandoned states.” It seems to me that would include CVS, Merck, and others. CVS, for instance, owns and controls medical practices in so-called abandoned states. Perhaps that is not what VDEX intends, but it seems to me how that proposal can be interpreted. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 14, 2019 22:21:45 GMT -5
Are there any other medical clinics that sell drugs directly to their patients? I can't think of any. Since it would be lucrative for a clinic to sell directly to patients, I have to believe that some rule or regulation that prohibits it. My understanding is that the CVS Health umbrella has both pharmacies and clinics, so I assume they do. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 14, 2019 22:19:34 GMT -5
In the proposal VDEX says they intend to open 100 clinics in the next 2 or 3 years.. as well as possible international deals. Promises, promises. Mannkind promised international deals and so much more as well. youtu.be/H8Q83DPZy6ENever had a doubt In the beginning Never a doubt Trusted too true In the beginning I loved you right through Arm in arm we laughed like kids At all the silly things we did You made me promises promises Knowing I'd believe Promises promises You knew you'd never keep |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 14, 2019 17:12:27 GMT -5
VDEX wrote in its proposal: "MannKind agrees that it will refrain from selling Afrezza directly to any medical provider or practice, or to any entity that also owns all or part of, or controls, or is under common control, with any medical practice in any of the 'abandoned states.'"
I'm not sure exactly how drug distribution works in the U.S.
But CVSHealth (just the example that first came to mind) encompasses (from its website) Retail Pharmacies, Pharmacy Benefits Management, Clinical Services, Specialty Pharmacy, and more.
So, if I understand the proposal above correctly, VDEX wants it so that Mannkind could no longer deal directly with CVS (and like entities of size in the same position)?
VDEX seems to have some pretty big asks.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 14, 2019 15:07:42 GMT -5
They want to be the SOLE DISTRIBUTOR of AFREZZA? Too funny. They feel they have the protocols to make Afrezza successful yet they have NO MONEY, NO SALESFORCE and NO INFRASTRUCTURE to go Nationwide or even Global. And I'm sure MNKD and/or the FDA found many ERRORS in their "WHITE PAPER". I did and I'm not a Scientist. Maybe VDEX knows MNKD is about to announce a Partner and they are pleading to the shareholders to give them a shot? . It will not hurt MNKD and Afrezza's sales. I guess the only reason why the management team is reluctant is: if VDEX is very successful in those states, it would make the current management team looking really bad in their marketing strategy. Well, ultimately, not just the abandoned states. "Further, with respect to all other states, when/if sales to HFM are equal to, or greater than 15% of all Afrezza sales in a given state, MannKind will abide by the same limitation on selling Afrezza as agreed to above with respect to the 'abandoned states.'" |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 14, 2019 14:02:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 14, 2019 14:00:03 GMT -5
I wonder to what extent the high prices we pay in the US subsidize the low prices seen abroad. High prices in the US don't really subsidize low prices abroad. Prices are lower abroad because those nations are paying for their drugs without any rebates or "manufacturer revenue" loaded into the prices. The pharmas receive (practically) the same net dollar amounts whether sold in the US or abroad...it's the PBMs that lose out. As an example, claim costs for Tecfidera for our group clients might run $6500 to $7500 monthly for the US-dispensed drug, but will be $3300 to $4000 for the Canada-dispensed drug (the manufacturer and packaging, with the exception of the addition of French language to the Canada-dispensed drug, are identical). The pharma sees generally the same net cost under either scenario, but there are no rebates or "manufacturer revenue" paid to PBMs or other entities.
I've said it before, if you want to substantially reduce our drug costs here in America, then (i) eliminate rebates and other pharma "incentives" paid for formulary placement, (ii) ban drug advertising in all but industry and medical journals (if the public doesn't have the requisite ability to write its own scripts, it doesn't have the education/knowledge to make recommendations to its physicians), (iii) eliminate patent extensions for repurposing, reformulating or creating a "new" combination drug that results from the addition of a single, previously patented chemical, (iv) ban the payments to generic manufacturers for not manufacturing generics when brands first come off patent, (v) encourage employers to adopt coinsurance-only Rx benefit plan designs and (vi) publish the wholesale acquisition costs of all drugs.
It's just too bad that our legislators aren't in DC to solve problems, but rather are there only to get re-elected.
I agree with most of what you say, but I'm not sure your numerical example is always the case. U.S. drugmakers set their own prices, in most other countries the prices are set (or capped) for them. Safe drugs that are high cost with limited benefit and with cheaper alternatives already available on the market (very often) won't be approved in other nations, whereas they may be approved and sold for a high price in the U.S. So, in at least some situations, drugmakers will make more on a drug in the U.S. than they can in other markets. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 14, 2019 11:55:16 GMT -5
So what’s the story? I’m hearing from people on StockTwits that there’s all kinds of people beating up on them because ...something about Mannkind? How about UTHR is just overvalued, with year over year declines in both revenue and earnings? Not to mention one of its phase 3 trials failed a couple of months back. Personally, I doubt Mannkind has anything to do with the UTHR price decline. |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 13, 2019 11:16:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 12, 2019 19:30:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jun 12, 2019 8:27:46 GMT -5
jmpls.ljfevents-rsvp.com/JMP Securities invites you to attend its annual life sciences equity research conference, which brings institutional investors together with senior executives of leading publicly traded and privately held companies in the areas of biopharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and medical devices and technologies. Fireside chats and thematic panel discussions incorporating a range of senior executives, key opinion leaders, practitioners and patients will highlight the primary trends shaping the life sciences marketplace today.
|
|
