Poodle
-C'mon now, how can you possibly believe that the numbers that Spectrx gave for the market size are accurate when they did not back up their numbers with facts on how the final total was determined??
I apologize to all you folks who have seen this before:
From exchange2000.com - CCSI News Regarding Size Of Market
The World Health Organization has published the current annual birthrate of approximately 4,000,000 births in the United States, with approximately 10 percent of these births being premature infants. The company estimates that individual bilirubin blood tests on newborn infants (heelsticks), which are not part of a general panel blood test, total approximately 15,000,000 tests performed annually in the United States, based on data made available by the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, independent market studies commissioned by the company and business proposals from potential marketing partners.
The company believes that published reimbursement amounts by third party insurance carriers for heelstick bilirubin blood tests, not part of a panel test, range between $22-$34 per test in the United States. Assuming a $22 fee, the company estimates that approximately $330 million is spent annually on monitoring bilirubin infant jaundice in the United States.
Internationally, using the World Health Organization birth rates, independent market studies and research obtained from companies currently marketing neonatal medical devices in foreign countries, the company estimates that the current European market for infant bilirubin tests is approximately the same size as the U.S.; South America and Canada combined represent approximately 25 percent of the U.S. market size and the Southern Chinese and entire Japanese markets combined represent approximately the same size of market as the United States. (end)
-There is no point in discussing Spectrx's numbers unless they can back them up.
-Also, there is no point to discuss the potential dollar amounts until an agreement is signed. As was stated previously, different companies negotiate in different ways. There is no way we can know how the specifics will work out and it would be meaningless to try to guess.
As far as this statement: Negotiations: It seems to be logical for the company to have an agreement well before FDA approval (IMHO) to be able to start to supply product immediately. Looks like CCSI have already lost about a year. That's not only earning that they did not get, but also competitors coming. Such negotiations seems to be very expensive. Even not an ideal deal could be more profitable.
-This again, IMO, shows savvy management skills. The company did have some inquiries before the FDA approval. I believe that Darby probably could have signed with someone before.
-However, since FDA approval, there have been "discussions with International Medical Device CompanieS interested in global distribution rights". The potential bids from these companies (knowing that other companies are bidding) will be more attractive IMO.
-The addition of Fred Frank only improves the outlook of the potential distribution deals to be signed. He has significant experience dealing with huge international companies and is well-known globally in the Health Care Industry (see the Research Page).
Jane |
