for a device that leads to such a dramatic increase in the amount of time a patient spends in the target glucose range. Enough people demand, the cos will pay. When they do the math; more time in the target zone = less spending on kidney disease, amputations, eye probs, etc, etc. That is the next milestone. Has'nt had any problem with previous milestones.
WRONG! Insurance companies will resist adopting this new technology and paying premium costs for a continuous monitor. They (patients & physicians) will have to show medical necessity for using something other than a regular blood glucose monitor and test strips. This will be a very small pool of patients.
I don't think that the early users will belimited to those that have trouble achieving decent control. I think it will also include those that are in good control and want achieve even better control or normogycemia. These are the ones who fight for every one tenth of a point improvement in A1c's in order to prevent the awful complications. These are the same type of people who started using pumps in the early days.
how about the small percentage of the patients that needs extra tool to help them manage?
20 million patients, and 0.1% would be 200k users for dxcm.
You can do your own math to figure the the revenue in this scenario.
Scepticism is ok. If you are a long term investor, read up a little in diabletes and you may see my point.
I agree it is about compliance. BG monitoring was a huge step up from urine testing. It allowed people to get feedback on the challenge of balancing their diet, exercise and medication to manage their disease. BGM however is intermittent. It allows a certain degree of control but it clearly is limited. Again look at the distribution of HbA1c's in any study population and you will see.
Continuous monitoring will allow diabetics to act before their sugar levels get into dangerous and harmful territories.
You are right that the it will be a small group of type 1's that will start the ball rolling. These are the early adopters who drive any breakthrough innovation. Those early adopters, by the way, tend to see the leading endocrinologists and thought leaders. If the EA's manage to reduce their high and low excursions and improve HbA1c's, the technology will start to move to the fat part of the adoption curve.
All the shorts are saying either it costs too much or it was buy on the rumor and sell on the news.
I feel that the price tag will drop as the number of users grow. I also feel that this is just the start, so it is not buy the rumor and sell the news. I saw a lot of new institutional positions on nasdaq.com for this stock.
FDA Approval of Continuous Glucose Sensor
Accelerates Development of Artificial Pancreas
Technology Could Revolutionize Diabetes Care and Management
New York, March 27, 2006 � The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), the world�s leading charitable supporter of research on type 1 diabetes and its complications, said today that the federal government�s approval of another medical device that continuously monitors glucose is an important step in the development of an artificial pancreas�a major research priority for JDRF�and has the potential to greatly improve the quality of diabetes care and lower the risk of complications such as blindness, heart attack, kidney failure, and amputation.
�Continuous glucose sensors represent a giant leap forward in care for people with diabetes, allowing them to monitor their glucose levels and precisely dose their insulin based on that real-time information,� said Aaron Kowalski, PhD, Director of Strategic Research Projects at JDRF. �This technology should greatly improve glycemic control�which research has shown to be the key to reducing or even eliminating both short and long-term complications of diabetes.�
Pattern recognition is part of the reason for using the device. It would seen this is a better mouse-trap in this area. Agree it will have limited use in the beginning to those who have consistent problems with elevated A1c. In some control can be easily acheived with a meter and normal A1c but there are many who are not, even when very conscientious. Someone will pay for it because of the cost of complications later. Study of this is required to assess the cost savings in the longer term but it will be done. There is so much more to be learned with this and we hardly scratch the surface.