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 : GENZYME - THE KING OF THE BIOTECHS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MCorbley who wrote (330)	7/30/1998 1:09:00 PM
From: Vector1	Respond to of 410

MCorbley< Unfortunately in the current world of managed care cost is inextricably tied to what becomes the standard of care.

To: MCorbley who wrote (330)	7/30/1998 2:50:00 PM
From: Lighthouse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 410

Thanks for the reply. I am glad to see knowledgable people such as yourself posting on this thread again. I for one am grateful for the contributions/help. My understanding is that surgical adhensions do occur in most procedures at some level. Usually they are not significant or cause any long term harm to the patient. The 2.5% figure I quoted earlier is for the more serious adhension formations. I lifted this figure from an analyst report that was written many months ago. As I am not a doctor (and do not play one on the internet) I cannot make a judgement call on this score. I do know that the definition of a pioneer is "He's the one with arrows in his chest" GENZ is taking its lumps on Seprafilm becuase they are trying to change the standard of care for surgical procedures. This is hard even when the results are fairly conclusive (many, many angioplast procedures are done without platlett inhibitors even though the trial data strongly points to their use). Seprafilm so far has not generated "a buzz" about Seprafilm strong enough to overcome surgeon resistance to change. I have read reports that say, in effect, that Seprafilm is a cure in search of a problem. Time will tell, but that time is expensive. 1) Purchase price of DSP to augment Seprafilm 2) Opportunity cost of those funds. 3) Equipment and manufacturing purchases (and their opportuity costs) 4) Management time and attention 5) Time lapse allows competitors a chance to catch up lowering margins permanently In the end I hope Seprafilm catches on, but it has to really catch on. I suspect, (in a highly unscientific way) that Seprafilm will need to do over $100,000,000 annually with high gross margins just to recoup the investment the company has made in the product. Again thanks for the post. Regards,