Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Chromatics Color Sciences International. Inc; CCSI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (2951)	6/11/1998 10:33:00 PM
From: Quad Sevens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5736

<< By implication, they must expect to sell it for upwards of $20 to meet their $300 million market projection. >> Roger, give us a break please. The 300 million is CCSI's estimate for total bili-testing expenditures billed to insurers in the U.S. CCSI never said the 300 million was its market. I believe Colormate III needs a light sensor placed on the baby's skin (not sure, someone help me out). So you do have a contamination problem. Also, the maker of the machine can dictate what disposable gets used, as Minolta is doing with its bili-tester presently (see today's CCSI release). Agree with your comments on third world. We should stick with the U.S., Western Europe, Japan and selected other areas. You get a large market anyway. But: CCSI should not have referred to all babies. That was dumb. Wade

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (2951)	6/11/1998 10:51:00 PM
From: Quad Sevens	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5736

Roger, anyone: Any comment on Asensio's estimate of 1 to 2 bucks per test as cost to the hospital? CCSI did not address this claim, which would be potent if true. Hard to see how this could be true. You've got the heel prick, syringe disposable, lab analysis, misc. labor, and associated paperwork. You have insurance costs associated with infection to baby due to heel prick as well as for protection of health-care workers around blood. 1 to 2 bucks per test sounds real low. Assuming 22 to 34 bucks is correct, it would mean a hospital mark-up of 1100 to 3400 per cent. That sounds high, even for a hospital. Wade

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (2951)	6/11/1998 11:02:00 PM
From: gamesmistress	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5736

OK, let's do some figgering. According to CCSI's rebuttal, they stated that 15,000,000 individual laboratory serum bilirubin tests were conducted in the US annually, and hospitals charged between $22-$34 per test for insurance reimbursement. This is where Asensio gets his statement that CCSI claims US hospitals spend approximately $330 to $510 million/year monitoring infant jaundice. I don't think you can assume that CCSI "must expect to sell it [the disposable device] for upwards of $20 to meet their $300 million market projection." Why wouldn't they price it aggressively - say less than half of the current price - in any country they chose to market it to? If an easy to use, inexpensive test is available the number of tests done may well increase. The test does not require a lab and can be done at home by non-professionals, I believe. I agree that in many countries births do not occur in hospitals and this sort of test could be popular if it's marketed well and priced right.